Gay Marriage Legal Everywhere, Disney Bans Selfie Sticks, Scalia Insult Generator: P.M. Links

|

  • Gay
    Dreamstime

    The historic day has arrived: Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states, thanks to the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

  • Reminder: the libertarian movement has been at the forefront of the cause of gay marriage for decades.
  • The Washington Post's Ilya Somin, a leading libertarian legal blogger, writes that he agrees with the decision, though not its reasoning.
  • The decision "is already being used to sell you washing machines."
  • Freedom to Marry, a pro-gay marriage group, will close its doors in a matter of months, its goals accomplished.
  • Politico's Dylan Byers wonders about the ethics of journalism outlets unabashedly declaring their support for gay marriage.
  • If all the gay marriage stuff wasn't enough good news for you, how about this: Disney is banning selfie sticks.
  • Freddie de Boer makes the case for legal polygamy.
  • The Scalia insult generator is a lot of fun. Mine: "One would think that Robby's mind is tutti-frutti applesauce. Words no longer have meaning."

Follow Reason on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

Advertisement

NEXT: David Harsanyi on the Supreme Court vs. Rule of Law in King v. Burwell

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. Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states…

    Recognized.

    1. Hello.

      “Freddie de Boer makes the case for legal polygamy.”

      It’s a mixed up world:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVXmMMSo47s

    2. Legal. In Virginia it was specifically illegal for anyone to create anything “approximating” marriage.

      1. In situations like that, sure legalized is appropriate.

        I generally prefer “recognize” because in actual reality, gay people were getting married before any states recognized it officially and i don’t like the idea that marriage only exists when the state says so.

        1. Marriage only exists when the state says so. Think how much this decision reinforces that point. Fuck, all rights flow from the government when it deigns to let us rent them for a while.

          1. RaCISgendered homophobular shitlord!

            1. I don’t even care anymore. Maybe I’ll get a Confederate flag tattooed on my face. Fuck it.

              1. Make it a Stars&Bars; w**dch*pp*r tat, and a lotta guys would ch*p in.

              2. I appreciate your despondency I really do. I find it rather liberating not to care if someone thinks I’m racist or homophobic or whatever. Calling someone some species of bigot has become the ultimate weapon of the social justice mob and the more academic cultural marxists. They use it with both ease and great success. I say let them use it, let their condemnation wash over you. Eventually their claims and arguments will lose their power.

            2. ?

      2. It was my understanding Virginia already recognized same-sex marriage before today’s ruling.

    3. You’ll know it when you see it?

      1. “Hey!? Didn’t you go to camp with my friend?! I knew that was you!”

    4. Nah, not even recognized.

      Its now mandatory that every state license gay marriages, I believe.

      “Recognized” would just mean they have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

      I haven’t read the opinions, but aren’t they saying that it any state that licenses any marriage, must also license gay marriage?

      1. I look at it as recognizing reality. Gay people have been getting married since well before any state recognized or solemnized them. I see a license as state recognition of a fact that exists with or without the license.

  2. The decision “is already being used to sell you washing machines.”

    Which washing machine will clean the santorum off your clothes the best?

    1. Why the Mayfag of course!

      Love it when I can make the same joke in multiple threads!

      (You are the same joke in multiple threads!)

  3. Freedom to Marry, a pro-gay marriage group, will close its doors in a matter of months, its goals accomplished.

    I have a doubt.

    1. I still pay property taxes to a “Beach Cities Hospital District”. We no longer have any hospitals in the district. The last one closed more than 10 years ago.

      1. Freedom to Marry isn’t a creation of the government.

        1. And not a single person has gone to prison for marrying gay. So nobody’s freedom to marry has been violated.

          1. See my other post about Virginia making it illegal for anyone to create anything “approximating” marriage that wasn’t one man plus one woman. Nobody has to go to prison for their to be injustice.

        2. Never underestimate the power of scope creep.

        3. Same idea, though.

          see .org, moveon for further reading.

          1. Where “dot” come in the card catalog?

      2. The telephone tax to help fund the Spanish-American War lasted for a good hundred years.

        1. Are you serious? That’s so ridiculous it must be true.

        2. What’s this thing you call a ‘telephone’?

          /my teenage son

          1. It involves 2 dixie cups and cotton string.

    2. if it does, it will be the first activist group I can recall ever doing that. Most of them need their hobby horse to keep running because otherwise, they would have to find real jobs.

    3. MoveOn disbanded after the Clinton Administration, right?

      1. If by ‘disbanded’, you mean lost any form of logic or coherancy, then yes.

        1. You’d think an organization named Move On would know when to ‘move on.’

          Sort of like “for a magazine named Reason….”

    4. It’s unusual, but not unheard of Love Makes a Family in Connecticut should be the template for all organizations. Clear goal, disbanded after they met said goals.

      1. And let’s not forget The Liberator.

      2. Gay God Bless ’em if they do.

  4. If all the gay marriage stuff wasn’t enough good news for you, how about this: Disney is banning selfie sticks.

    Our Narcissist-in-Chief has a sad.

    1. I saw my first selfie stick yesterday – and this was on the waterfront overlooking lower Manhattan where I see tourists every day. Are they really that much of a thing? I kind of thought it was something you only see in commercials that make fun of the kind of people who might use them.

      1. Selfie sticks were already all the rage last fall in Germany. Every self-respecting Asian tourist had one.

        1. “self-respecting Asian tourist”

          Fist?

            1. And he’s never been self-respecting.

        2. The Grand Canyon tourists had loads of selfie sticks.

        3. They were all over Portland a year or so ago. They seem to have become big with narcissistic teenage girls recently.

      2. I’ve only seen two IRL at this point.

        1. You know, what we need are anti-selfie sticks, which you can use to engage in duels with other people.

            1. No, no, no, more for selfie stick and anti-selfie stick combat.

      3. I’ve seen the most around Canal street, though even then it was vendors hawking them. I agree that they don’t seem that numerous in NYC, but then it only takes one to really annoy and obstruct you.

      4. I saw a metric shit ton of them while visiting NYC about a month ago. They’re annoying as fuck, but I still find them much less cringe inducing than the idiots sticking their iPads through the fence of the ESB observation deck to snap photos.

        1. Agree, iPads are much, much worse. Selfie sticks at least improve picture taking.

          1. “Ah thank you for holding that giant square of plastic in front of my face while I’m enjoying the view. Oh, you need to take 6 more of the same shot while holding that RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME? No, of course it’s no problem.”

        2. the ESB observation deck

          I didn’t realize she had so many fans. Warty, Epi, and Irish are in good company.

          1. Some people really like dead teeth.

        3. This Gen X geezer finds the overall behavior of today’s youth and their toys to be appallingly rude. I’m tired of people staring at their phones and slowing everyone down instead of looking where they’re going, and OMFG people jabbering into their earphone mics like some crazy person walking around loose.

  5. …the libertarian movement has been at the forefront of the cause of gay marriage for decades.

    Because nothing says liberty like a state licensing scheme.

    1. Same sex couples now have the right to pay the state for a piece of paper.

    2. Ohhhh so fucking much this. This was, at best, a half-win for libertarians. Equality of protection under the law at the expense of a slightly expanded bureaucracy and some small amount of federalism. Can we all stop pretending this was an actual 100% win?

  6. Oh good. I was just looking for a thread to talk about gay marriage.

    1. How do you like it so far? Is he good to you? Does he bring you flowers? Is he finally “opening up?”

  7. Freddie de Boer makes the case for legal polygamy.

    What about polyandry?

    What about polyamory or whatever you call it for 2 males and 2 females?

    1. Polygamy is all of the above.

      1. One man marrying multiple women is polygyny.

        1. Polygamy encompasses polygyny and polyandry.

          1. I could never tell which was a rhombus and which was a tetrahedron (hangs head in shame)

            1. Tetrahedron is three-dimensional; a rhombus is two-dimensional.

              Baseball is played on a rhombus, and the rhombus is one of the suits in a standard deck of playing cards.

              And who could forget the classic James Bond movie Rhombi Are Forever?

              /ducking

              1. Hits Ted with tomato.

              2. To be rigorous (by which I mean pedantic) (by which I mean annoying), since the earth is (vaguely) spherical, baseball is played on the edges of a very very very low tetrahedron.

                1. Your second parenthetical should have been contained within your first. You also left out the commas in your “very” series. Your agonizer, please.

                  1. While I agree with your first suggestion (by which I mean didactic vacuity), I submit that the second is subject to individual style and is a definition and expression of my identity – an expression, sir, which I am now informed is expressly protected by the Constitution of the United States, as explained at flail-point by the spokeswraith for the Nazgul.

                    1. People who talk about grammar not having any rules should be, well, I guess I can’t say shot. Launched into orbit? Is that okay? Is this thing on?

                    2. “… ON”?! Dammit, don’t end sentences with prepositions!

                    3. Is “on” a preposition in my final sentence above? Think carefully before answering.

                    4. As long as we’re being pedantic, in English it is perfectly cromulent to end a sentence with a preposition.

                      The whole ‘not ending sentences with prepositions’ idea was started by some dead white guys who thought Latin was the ideal language, and tried to reform English to be more like Latin. (In Latin sentences you’re not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition.)

                      Of all the crazy attempts to reform the English language, I’ll never understand how this somehow became a rule some people believe.

                      And that’s one to grow on.

                      You can also start a sentence with a conjunction in English, just don’t overdo it.

                    5. There are no more rules! WORDS NO LONGER MEAN ANYTHING, THAT’S THE LAW NOW.

                    6. Well, I can’t argue with that. Zssyylnndkkyyk.

                    7. Woodchippered?

                2. If the ballpark were laid out with laser measuring devices and not just gravity-powered levels, it might be truly flat.

                  There are multiple layers to being pedantic.

                  1. Light is still deflected by gravity. The deflection caused by the mass of the earth would by infinitesimal, but it would be there. Mocking us.

                    1. Gravity? Why do people talk about gravity like it’s a real thing? It’s an illusion, without any explanation of what it actually is.

                    2. It is the force of attraction between two objects with mass. You’re confusing its existence with an explanation for its mechanics.

                    3. An illusion, I tell you. Show me a graviton. Or gravity wave. It’s all nonsense–we’ve been had.

            2. Always remember, “The Tan Gent entered the Rhom Bus at the Stop Sine.”

              /Old Trigonometry Cheer

          2. Indeed, polygamy includes all combinations of male and/or female humans beyond two. In fact, I think the definition may not explicitly require humans.

            1. I think the definition may not explicitly require humans.

              I had a GSD that passed away four years ago and while she was living, if it had been permitted, I would have legally married her.

              (w/o consumation of course)

              1. Not polygamy unless that’s in addition to a wife. Or perhaps I should say spouse. Assuming a wife may be a crime.

                1. Well, *con*suming a wife is. Or so I’ve been told.

              2. I take exception to your handle, sir.

  8. …he agrees with the decision, though not its reasoning.

    Does anyone agree with the reasoning but not the decision?

    1. This supreme court might actually be able to come up with a way to make me agree with their reasoning all the way up until they completely misread their own words and get the decision wrong.

  9. “And really, after five minutes of talking to you in pre-op, I wanted to punch you in the face and man you up a little bit,” a doctor can be heard saying in a recording at the center of a lawsuit.

    http://abc13.com/health/listen…..ry/802568/

    1. This is the stupidest actual lawsuit I’ve ever seen.

  10. Hey, look, polygamy. That didn’t take long. Not that I give a crap about that much, either.

    1. Principled libertarians support polygamy (assuming non-coercive, i.e., non-East African polygamy generally). But you go ahead and survey the vast majority of the lemmings that came around to celebrating teh ghey over the past decade or two and you’ll find that upwards of 90% think polygamy is teh wrongz! and should never be legal under any circumstance.

      1. The DeBoer article is all about how wrong those people have been, and how unprincipled.

        1. Just get the government the hell out of marriage. And most everything else.

          1. They can’t do that now, based on today’s ruling.

          2. If it makes you feel any better, ProLib, frequent sex has already gotten the hell out of marriage.

            *** ducks ***

            1. Depends on the marriage.

              1. Heterosexual, you mean?

                *** ducks ***

        2. The DeBoer article is all about how wrong those people have been, and how unprincipled.

          Indeed. But it shall fall on deaf ears. At least it will until the trend toward polyandrous relationships becomes a legitimately big thing, at which point polygamist arrangements will then be pushed by the corporatists and cultural vanguards. Once that happens, the same lemmings who evolved to celebrate teh ghey marriagez! over the course of a decade will similarly evolve to celebrate teh polygamyz!

          It’s lemmings all the way down.

      2. I mean, “consenting adults” is basically the same as pedophilia and chicken-fucking, right?

        1. Um…are…are you offering a chicken fucking service? I’m asking for Crusty.

          1. Hint: It’s the bookmobile driver.

            1. Including, but not limited to.

          2. You might want to have a conversation with Old Man With Candy about that, FM.

            1. *george takai voice*
              Oh my.

            2. Old Man With Candy

              I am not bound by your cis-handle bigotry. I have DIGNITY.

        2. I mean, “consenting adults” is basically the same as pedophilia and chicken-fucking, right?

          Well, technically one of the biggest SSM proponents and found of the Human Rights Campaign, Terry Bean, was arrested for sodomizing a 15 year old boy…. so kinda?

          1. Sorry, fucking 15 year olds doesn’t fall under pedophilia.

    2. Bring it on! I applaud that link’s inclusion in the vaunted PM Links.

    3. Okay. But, what about adult incest? Free the motherfuckers!

      1. *Applause*

  11. Yesterday, we declared that words have no meaning, but look! Gay marriage!

    /SCOTUS

    1. From the Scalia Generator:

      “One would think that Bobarian’s mind is a looming specter of unutterable horror. Words no longer have meaning.”

      I think he got me mixed up with someone who writes Warty Fanfic.

      1. “”One would think that Marshall Gill’s showy profundities are quite absurd argle-bargle. One is tempted to shield his eyes from the upcoming spectacle.”

        Love it!

  12. …Disney is banning selfie sticks.

    Selfie drones it is then.

      1. IT WILL NEVER WORK THAT WELL IN REAL LIFE.

  13. “..the libertarian movement has been at the forefront of the cause of gay marriage for decades.”

    The Libertarian movement have been playing the useful idiot to the Fascist left for decades.

    Fix it.

    1. The “fascist left” did not care about gays or gay marriage until 20 years ago.

  14. Scalia on Rufus:

    “One would think that Rufus J Firefly’s thoughts are intoxicated and utterly unmotivated. This wolf comes as a wolf.”

    It’s like he knows me so well.

  15. Beyond the fact that they’ll be outmoded in a few years, I dunno why people get so worked up about selfie sticks.

    1. Me neither. Oh wait, yes I do — signalling!

      1. Would it be signalling to say that I’m slightly tired of everyone calling everything everyone says or does signalling, even if it is probably a correct accusation most of the time? Has accusing someone of signalling itself become a way of signalling?

        1. Everything is signalling, except what you do alone and never tell anyone about.

            1. **Gilmore hides cucumber behind his back**

          1. except what you do alone and never tell anyone about

            Well, that’s a relief.

            1. To be fair, when they finally find all the bodies buried in the yard? *Then* its signaling.

    2. Outmoded by what? It’s a stick! Selfie-drones are a thing I suppose.

      1. Smartphone manufacturers have begun to outfit their front-facing cameras with wide-angle lenses, making selfie sticks unnecessary.

        1. But people still selfie stick the gopro which is the widest of wide-angles. In the future there will be sticks.

  16. So I guess gay marriage makes up for King vs. Burwell? Does the end of the rule of law become okay since we have gay marriage?

    1. Absolutely! Shred the entire constitution who cares because we now have gay marriage.

      1. Easy way to climb the mountain- declare where ever you are to be the top, and celebrate.

        1. “Selfie sticks for *everyone*!”

    2. Obamacare saved! Marriage destroyed!

    3. “Does the end of the rule of law become okay since we have gay marriage?”

      We needed to end the rule of law to impose homosexual marriage on the states. Kennedy’s reasoning on this is just as atrocious as Robert’s is on Burwell. Marriage is a fundamental right because of procreation, which is what gays cannot do wth each other by definition. It is a result oriented ruling.

    4. You poor baby. Everything’s gonna be OK.

      1. So you love Obamacare then?

        1. Dude.

          Get over it.

          Right wing extremism and Confederate flags are the real threats.

          I mean, come on.

        2. ISIS Goes Door-To-Door Killing Scores Of Civilians In Kobani.

          DING-DONG

          “Who is it?”

          “Encyclopedia salesman, by Allah.”

          “You sure you’re not the ISIS door-to-door assassination squad?”

          “Would we lie?”

          “OK, you can come in…AAAAAAAHHHH!”

          1. +1 landshark

          2. For a bit of MP fun…

            ISIS Goes Door-To-Door Killing Scores Of Civilians In Kobani.

            DING-DONG

            “Who is it?”

            “ISIS door-to-door assassination squad, by Allah.”

            “You’re not encyclopedia salesmen, are you?”

            “No, by Allah. We only want to come in and kill apostates”

            “OK, you can come in!”

            “Mind you, have you ever really considered the benefits of owning a quality set of encyclopedia?”

    1. That is just work place violence.

      1. It’s all okay as long as no one watches Gone with the Wind.

    2. Wow, those French cab drivers are really taking this Uber protest a bit far, now…

      1. I’m so sad the Uber riots are happening right now. French “protests” are possibly my favorite thing on earth and nobody is talking about them torching uber cars and going after Courtney Love.

        One picture of a flipped Citro?n and I’m putty.

        1. I saw these anti-Uber riots on TV and my francophilia is almost gone.

  17. Alt-alt-text: “What has 3 thumbs and is getting a spitroast? These guys!”

    1. Makin the wobbly H!

  18. Reminder: the libertarian movement has been at the forefront of the cause of gay marriage for decades.

    More like useful idiots…

  19. Reading Robby Soave’s posts you wonder if he actually knows what the word libertarian means.

    1. Some sock was asking ” what is a cosmotarian” and “why does everyone H8 Robby” yesterday. Maybe he was doing some journolistic research.

  20. Reminder: the libertarian movement has been at the forefront of the cause of gay marriage for decades.

    Well, there were a lot of people who didn’t get the memo about that. Also, I was repeatedly lectured on here about how the Official LIBERTARIAN(tm) Position was that the state had no business in marriage. Having your cake and eating it too?

    1. I’m happy for you, Tonio, but I can’t get too excited after the bombshell about ACA.

      1. I’m not happy about that ACA decision, either.

        1. That cliff we’re wanting to drive off of sure is getting close. Won’t be too long now.

          1. Self-driving cars will take care of the cliff issue.

            1. That’s a great idea. Replace every person in government with AI.

              1. Then let the AI try and avenge Fort Sumter. Gonna use a rail gun this time, Yankee motherfuckers.

                1. It’s okay, they’re going to force the South and Texas to leave the union, anyway. We’re all tainted.

                  1. It’s okay, they’re going to force the Southerners and Texans to leave the union into concentration camps, anyway. We’re all tainted.

                    FIFY

    2. you make it sound like that’s a problem.

    3. Baby steps.

      1. But expanding a bureaucracy is kind of a baby step in the wrong direction…

        1. How is it expanding a bureaucracy?

          I don’t see the Dept. of Homo Marriage on the flowchart.

          1. You’re expanding the state’s ability/requirement to issue contracts between consenting adults, which it has no right to do. The more people invested in those contracts, the harder it will be to ultimately push government out of them.

            1. There will be new divorce courts for gays, for one. The first time a divorce judge doesn’t have a penis to smash they will have to make some new laws. So we will have marriage “equality” for about five seconds and then some animals will be more equal than others.

            2. As I noted below, why is the perfect suddenly the enemy of good in this issue? would it be better if the state got out of it altogether? Yes. That won’t happen any time soon.

              Equal protection under the law is unequivocally a good thing. Full stop. What fucktards do with that protection isn’t and shouldn’t be a consideration.

              1. The perfect being the enemy of the good is something like legalizing marijuana: yeah, the whole drug war should end, but legalization of one substance accelerates that change, so start with the good and work toward the perfect.

                This is the good being the enemy of the better. The bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy AND everyone (right AND left now) will get super upset if someone tries to end government authorized marriage. So this “good” blocks further progress toward the removal of government from contracts involving individuals.

                1. I’m still not seeing an expanding bureaucracy here. Gay people will use the same licensing apparatus, divorce in the same courts, and within a generation have all the same complaints about the state’s involvement in their marriage as straight people.

                  Integration of the schools had not hindered the school choice movement, gays in the military has not hindered the anti-war movement, and gay marriage will lot hinder the government-out-of-marriage movement. We are just as unpopular and politically irrelevant today as we were a week ago.

                  1. I’m still not seeing an expanding bureaucracy here. Gay people will use the same licensing apparatus, divorce in the same courts, and within a generation have all the same complaints about the state’s involvement in their marriage as straight people.

                    Exactly.

                    The yokels are so unbelievably butthurt and grasping over this unquantifiable tragedy that they make a drowning man look sage and calm.

                    For clarity, I’ll say that the drowning man isn’t a homo.

  21. Well, next up polygamy and brothers and sisters marrying. And about time too. For real.

    I’m afraid that those who want to marry their dogs will still be out of luck. I just can’t see how you could reasonably enforce a contract against a dog. But I suppose you don’t have to tell your dog that.

    1. Well, next up polygamy and brothers and sisters marrying. And about time too. For real.

      I hope you weren’t one of those who dismissed that until gay marriage happened.

      1. No, I’ve been saying for some time that if intimate relationships get solemnized by the state then it shouldn’t be limited just to the popular kinds.

    2. Ha! That would require some intellectual honesty on the part of the “marriage equality” crowd. Most are only supporting it because supporting gays shows your tolerant and open minded. Gay is the new black, the new cool.

      1. Not looking for a strategic position. Just saying what I think.

      2. Next up: Old School Mormon is the new cool!

    3. Judge: Rufus, you understand you entered this contract freely, right?
      Rufus: Woof.
      Judge: And are therefore bound by its content.
      Rufus: Woof.
      Judge: I have no choice but to enforce alimony payments of six bones per month to your partner, Harold.
      Rufus: Grrrr.
      Judge: Please do not take that tone in this court.
      Rufus: Woof.

      1. Worth it to get away from that bitch.

    4. I’m afraid that those who want to marry their dogs will still be out of luck.

      Zeb, you are a mendacious twat.

      1. mendacious

        ?

      2. How’s that? I was being completely serious. I do think that polygamous and incestuous marriages should be legalized and recognized if that’s what people in those relationships want. And I don’t believe that dogs can legally enter into contracts with people.

        1. Oh, crap, I misread that. I retract that. I’m sorry.

        2. That and the constitution doesn’t apply to animals. If marriage was enforced under freedom of association and equal protection that argument shouldn’t hold. But I’m no constitutional scholar so I could be wrong.

          1. I dunno, is it in ACA? Or deemed to be?

    5. Reminds me of this bitch I was dating a few years ago. Real nutjob. Wouldn’t stop paging me in the middle of the night when she was detoxing off of Skippy Super Chunk.

  22. Freddie de Boer makes the case for legal polygamy

    So the Socons were right?

    1. Who could claim, with a straight face, that we were wrong?

      1. Reply to yourself, quick, so Francisco can lose his fucking mind!

        1. yoo-hoo

          1. Francisco…

            1. come and…

              1. get me…

                1. sucka!

        2. Too late.

      2. Well, the dogs thing is probably* not going to happen.

        * = Not a promise

    2. No. No one ever said it wouldn’ t lead to court mandated legal polygamy. Everyone knew this. All evidence of Libertarians and Progs lying and denying it will go down the memory hole.

      1. Were libertarians against polygamy? I’m not personally.

        1. they did dismiss socons arguing that gay marriage would lead to polygamy and incest though..

          1. Because objecting to equal recognition of contracts between 3 or more parties or parties who happen to be related is just as stupid as objecting to equal recognition of contracts between people of the same gender. Nobody said it wouldn’t happen, we said it was a stupid objection.

        2. You gonna trade your old lady in for a new model, or get a bigger garage?

          1. Bigger garage of course.

      2. John, stop arguing with the libertarian in your head.

        1. They are not in my head. They are on here. I said that years ago and multiple people said no it would never lead to polygamy. Sorry if the truth doesn’t fit your narrative. I am not lying to make you feel better.

          1. Whatever John. Holy fuck, you can be such a child sometimes.

            I don’t know of many libertarians that would be opposed to the legalization of polygamy. We want choice and stems from the concept of self-ownership and NAP. Get it?

            1. Fuck you.. It happened.

              1. Well, gosh, if 2 or 3 self-proclaimed libertarians said it on an anonymous forum, then they must all believe that very same thing.

                Wanting something to be true isn’t the same thing as reality.

                1. Sure JW and every other media outlet as well. No worries, it is down the memory hole now. You should enjoy being part of the Progressive movement now. Use of the memory hole is one of the better benefits.

                  1. John, I’ll spell it out for you.

                    I’m an individual. I speak for myself and no one else. I don’t speak for a movement. I don’t speak for a magazine or a web site. If other people made these statements, go take it up with them.

                    But hey, if this little tantrum makes you feel better, go nuts.

              2. I’ve never seen anyone say it.

  23. From the Hacker News guidelines:

    What to Submit

    On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one’s intellectual curiosity.

    Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they’re evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they’d cover it on TV news, it’s probably off-topic.

    Naturally, “Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules” is the #4 story with 1384 points and 893 comments.

    I fucking hate tech sites.

    1. I swore off Hacker News and Ars Technica specifically because of politics. I wasn’t enamored of Slashdot‘s political crap either, but politics wasn’t the primary reason I stopped reading it.

      1. ^this. Ars Technica has become unreadable and the comments will make you weep and rend your clothing for humanity.

        1. Any site that has comments voted upon will tend toward groupthink. I’d take Michael Hihn shitting up a thread twice daily on H&R over the circlejerk that many other sites have become.

      2. Ars Technica was really good from the late 90’s through the mid 00’s. After Conde Nast bought them, it went to complete shit. I bailed from the forums in about 2003 (after re-registering).*

        *I have the honor of being banned from the forums personally by C?sar/Ken Fisher in 2001.

      3. I never found Ars all that interesting one way or another and Slashdot was a bit before my time.

        Politics on HN would be a bit more bearable if they would drop the “we are so fucking civilized” act. Just because you don’t use swear words or call each other names very often doesn’t make you civilized; HN just swaps that for being insanely passive aggressive, cliquish, and circlejerky.

        1. Oh, and while I’m complaining about HN: fuck “evergreen” posts. I don’t need or want to hear about beej’s (HAHA SO FUNNY) guides to Unix IPC or network programming for the 30th time or “Reflections on Trusting Trust” (OMG DAE BACKDOORS?) for the 1000th time so you can gain precious internet points.

        2. Slashdot was a bit before my time

          Jeez man don’t make me feel old. Slashdot still had a pretty good thing going up until a couple of years ago.

      4. I started my trolling commenting career at Slashdot, or maybe it was Bryan’s Rice-Boy Page.

    2. Yeah, and if they discovered something really hugely earth-shattering, like life on mars, even Vogue and Womens Wear Daily would say something about that, even though it’s totally outside their normal scope of interest.

      1. This is not a one-off example for HN, by far.

      2. Womens Wear Daily would condemn the clothes choices of male scientists.

  24. “One would think that Robby’s mind is tutti-frutti applesauce. Words no longer have meaning.”

    More sentient than butt plug.

    1. I ship Scalia/Soave.

  25. Hey, did you guys hear? We discovered intelligent life from space just now….. well, ok, actually no, its not gay. Buts its pretty fucking cool….. guys? Ok, gay marriage is cooler.

  26. SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL SIGNAL

    1. What? Link.

    2. I hate people who leave their signal on

  27. Okay, which one of you homos wants to marry me?

    1. Crusty Juggler hmm.. I think I saw your name pop up on some World of Tanks last week. Was it you?

        1. So there are more then one individual running around with the name Crusty Juggler. Who knew that crusty jugglers were so popular?

          1. Who knew that crusty jugglers were so popular?

            They certainly are not with the people of Sandford, or the commenters here (except for Florida Man…he is my only friend).

            1. Florida Man…he is my only friend

              I think we’ve found you a homohusband

              1. *brings barrel of lube in on hand truck*

                1. That should last a couple of hours.

                2. Will this be on your wedding registry?

                  1. 48 percent off! I’m buying it myself, screw waiting til the wedding.

                    1. One of the commenters (Quincy) has a recipe so you can make it yourself, but it’ll be water-based, which is not ideal for the homosex.

                3. Finally someone to go cold-packing with.

            2. You said we were friends. You LIED.

              1. You LIED

                This is why I stay away from chicks.

                1. Not a chick. TANLW. Well-known fact.

    2. Your taste in women is a turn-off.

    3. I demand a woodchipper as a dowry. A nice one.

  28. “Reminder: the libertarian movement has been at the forefront of the cause of gay marriage for decades.”

    In that case, the Schadenfreude will be all the more delicious.

    I’ve called you Girondins; maybe I should call you Sorcerers Apprentices. The forces you’ve called up from the vasty deep are going to give you the wedgie-ing of a lifetime, and it will take all my self-discipline not to laugh.

    1. Yeah, I don’t think you can put too much of that on libertarians. They may have been at the forefront, but they were still ignored by everyone else.

    2. You’re like a leftist hoping for a while male serial killer to come along. It’s really unappealing, you know.

      1. Gah – “white”

      2. Look, I’m not *hoping* for a federal court to apply to the First Amendment the same watered-down interpretation the Supreme Court applied to the Tenth Amendment…in fact, I hope it *doesn’t* happen.

    3. Yahweh hasn’t killed you yet for eating bacon, so I’m not terribly worried that he’s going to get pissed off because everyone can now do what was formerly reserved for priests.

      1. You’re going to have to translate that into English before I can be in a position to reply.

        1. Swine was forbidden to eat, Christians eat bacon.

          Priest had/have man-boy sex.

          1. Remove the beam from thine own priests arse, before worrying what’s in thy neighbors’.

          2. Eddie isn’t actually a retard, he just plays one on TVin the comments.

            1. No, you have that wrong. He’s a retard.

              1. You only say that because you haven’t allowed Jesus into your asshole, like Eddie has.

                1. Jesus is a pretty sardonic name for a priest.

                  1. Ex-gardener.

                    1. Bowling champ.

                    2. And nobody fucks with him.

      2. Yahweh hasn’t killed you yet for eating bacon, so I’m not terribly worried that he’s going to get pissed off because everyone can now do what was formerly reserved for priests.

        Well, let’s see…
        http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe…..5206a1.htm

        Vs.

        http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statist…..lance.html

        /Just sayin’

    4. The forces you’ve called up from the vasty deep

      This narrative gets less believable every day.

      1. I can summon a Kraken. You can’t? Weird. Try calling tech support.

        1. I tried, but got this giant tentacly guy saying something about “r’lyeh” instead…

  29. Scalia’s burn for STEVE SMITH:

    “One would think that STEVE SMITH’s logic is Platonic golf. I would hide my head in a bag.”

    1. “One would think that Sudden’s beliefs are profoundly incoherent aphorisms. Just who do we think we are?”

  30. The Washington Post’s Ilya Somin, a leading libertarian legal blogger, writes that he agrees with the decision, though not its reasoning.

    Nothing can possibly go wrong!

  31. So if marriage is a right, how can the government “get out of it”?

    1. That’s the one thing that bugs me. I haven’t read too much about it yet, so I’m not sure exactly what the decision says. But if it does say that legally recognized marriage is a fundamental right, I disagree. It’s an equal protection issue.

      1. That’s exactly what it says, Zeb. The decision was based, as much as it was based on anything (because it’s not super coherent) on both equal protection AND substantive due process. If gays have a substantive due process right to marry, so does everyone, and the state cannot stop performing marriages ever. It’s terrible. Of course, it isn’t super explicit about that, but everything is couched in the idea that people somehow have a liberty right in a state-recognized relationship. It’s awful.

        1. Yes it is Nikki. But you are just a bigot still mad about Loving v. Virginia. That is what Tonio and Cytoxic told me anyway.

      2. Considering all the gay marriage legalization decisions said exactly that it is a bit late to complain…

        1. It’s not as if my complaining would have helped.

          1. Did you complain at the time.

            1. Which time?
              I have always said that as far as federal courts are concerned, it is about equal protection and nothing else.

        2. Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the property rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution.

          Maynard v. Hill (1888)

          1. I quote it here to provide the context of jurisprudence that was already established, not to endorse it. In fact, I emphatically denounce it. But that is the context in which today’s ruling was made, as were other rulings before it.

    2. Marriage is a right?

      God, does that mean the government will subsidize or force people to marry ugly fat people with crooked toes who drool?

      1. The state will subsidize or force you to get gay married as a form of affirmative action.

      2. That’s why my wife ended up with me.

    3. It can’t.

  32. Not bad on the links Robbo. Your Scalia hit piece was top notch for Salon though.

    1. …ok, who went and invented a Robby Soave insult-generator?…

  33. Fuck all this gay marriage and selfie stick shit. Let’s talk about abortion.

    Does anybody else here watch Childrens Hospital? It’s awesome.

    If so, what have you thought about the current season? They seem a bit off their game to me.

    1. I have not watched this season but I think it is very funny. They cram so many jokes into fifteen minutes. Plus, they get beautiful women say goofy things, which is outstanding. Also, everything Megan Mullally does makes me lol.

      1. Plus, they get beautiful women say goofy things, which is outstanding.

        Wait, you like beautiful women?

        1. He does, he just wouldn’t do any of them.

      2. They cram so many jokes into fifteen minutes.

        11, actually — which is that much more impressive. Their writers are brilliant.

        This season has had good episodes but, perhaps partially due to them being unable to get all the actors on set at the same time, they seem to have decided to “experiment” a bit more, with results ranging from mediocre to disastrous (“Koontz is Coming” — what an awful, awful episode; the AVClub reviewer liked it, naturally).

        1. The avclub’s reviews are usually a waste of time, the comments are even worse, and yet I still go there to read about shows I like.

          1. I don’t normally bother with it, but after I saw “Koontz is Coming” I was just flat-out confused and wanted to see if anyone “got it”.

  34. So when the law suits start rolling in and churches and such are being ordered to recognize and participate in gay marriage ceremonies or lose their tax exempt status and the ability to do use their facilities for anything but the most essential religious services, how many posts will Reason have on those cases? Fewer than the total number of posts on gay marriage today. It will be like Rotherham. A great silence followed by a single article posted at 12 am on a Saturday of some designated Reason writer saying “I just don’t know what to make of all of these lawsuits”.

    1. Right, John, because the folks at reason have never been guided by principle, No, sir. They just have a hard on for the homos.

      1. So they were all over the Rotherham story? Really? They are guided by principle unless adhering to it requires taking an unpopular stand.

      2. During the recent Indiana kerfuffle, Gillespie was very reluctant to oppose anti-discrimination law. Seemed to support it.

      3. hard on for the homos.

        Apparently you missed this weeks discussion about Conner Habib How could not be into that? Dreamy.

        1. Jesse gave him very good reviews.

          What part of his work is your favorite?

          1. I celebrate his entire catalog.

          2. To be fair, I haven’t seen his 3D porn, but the man is adorable and can take dick like a champ.

            1. Just seeing this pic for the first time… “oh, my!” Not the bears you usually post 🙂

              *begins furious googling*

              1. I have an appreciation for a broad array of types. I just know enough people on here who like the rugby built type that I focus on that.

                1. I prefer (Australian) footy – both the game and the men. Even if there’s a bit too much tweezing and tatting going on but that seems to be de rigeur.

                  1. Undeniably great looking guys, but the implicit high-maintenance curbs my interest.

      4. I’m starting to think you are right. The folks here got what they wanted – gay marriage – and don’t seem to care that they got it by a horrible misinterpretation of the Constitution.

        1. Or they take the good with the bad. The toothpaste isn’t going back into the tube. The Constitution is going to continue to be creatively interpreted whether I say that this decision is a good thing or not.

    2. I hope the court victory stems the flow of that crap, which is a horribly bad trend. More freedom, not less, please.

      1. It is going to encourage it. Did people rolling over on the Confederate flag get them to quit? No. They have moved onto tearing down statues. The whole point of this entire endeavor was to bring those lawsuits. I have no doubt the complaints have already been drafted. They will start dropping and dropping in large numbers before the end of the summer. Also, expect the IRS to start issuing regulations to that effect within the year.

        It is going to happen and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The only upside is that I really think you will see a lot of civil disobedience over this. I don’t think they are going to roll over.

        1. While I’m fine with gays legally marrying and have equal protection under the law, I’m incredibly opposed to compelled association, including when it comes to commerce. It’s telling that only preferred protected classes are getting the benefit of that, which flies in the face of equal protection itself.

          1. I’m incredibly opposed to compelled association,

            Hear, Hear!

            1. Next up, mandatory gay marriage!

              1. Oh hell no.

                1. Look, if you didn’t want your life controlled by the government, you should’ve been born 130 years ago.

          2. It’s telling that only preferred protected classes are getting the benefit of that, which flies in the face of equal protection itself.

            Which is an indication that this has never been about equality, much less Liberty.

            1. No, but to be fair to gays, they wanted the legal recognition for financial and for political reasons. The people jumping on that bandwagon wanted it for only political reasons.

              1. No they didn’t. They want to stick it to anyone who objects to them. Most gays are not Jesse. Most of them are dying to sue over this.

                1. I don’t agree with that. There are gays, there are political gays, and there are non-gays who are just thrilled to have a cause to further increase their political power with. The political gays probably like both the rights side of it and the political side. But I think the actual majority of gays aren’t looking for more than the financial benefits of marriage.

                2. Oh FFS stop pigeonholing everyone. You don’t know “most gays” so stop it already.

      2. I hope the court victory stems the flow of that crap, which is a horribly bad trend.

        You are an idiot.

        1. Well, expecting would be idiotic. Hoping is just that. You never know, they may find some other cause to fuck us with.

          1. That other cause will not be a substitute, it’ll be additive.

            1. Don’t try to cheer me up.

    3. Not really sure all of the Reason writers are 100% disciplined in their beliefs. The best example I can give is that there really hasn’t been much mentioned about this actually being an expansion of government power/bureaucracy, which should be a major issue to libertarians. Ok, fine, equal protection took a step forward. Expansion of government power renders it bittersweet.

      1. If your contention is government involvement in marriage is bad and should be eliminated, it is difficult to see how expanding the scope of government marriage to include more couples is a pro freedom position.

        1. Expanding the definition to include more people *is* a pro-freedom position, and I agree with it.
          Removing government from voluntary contracts between individuals is the *more* pro-freedom position, and I agree more with that.
          I’m just not in complete celebratory mode simply because gays can now marry. Any attempt to remove government from the institution altogether would now be regarded as taking everyone’s favorite new toy away and it’ll be even harder to do.

          1. So making more couples subject to the enforced contract terms and restrictions of government marriage is the “pro freedom” position? If more people having access to government marriage means more freedom, why do you object to it in the first place?

            1. I absolutely do not agree that government marriage == freedom. I don’t think it should exist at all because it restricts freedom.

          2. The responses on the left are largely, “Yay, the government has granted us a new right through government’s wisdom and benevolence!”

            And that is annoying. So close…

            1. And yet always, blazingly fucked 7 ways sideways, so far apart.

            2. Yeah, one of the defining characteristics of the left is the belief that government can actually *give people new rights*. It’s almost amazing how stupid that is on so many levels.

        2. It’s simple John.

          IF the gubmint must be involved in marriage, THEN it should apply the law regarding marriage equally.

          We’re never going to get the gubmint out of our lives. Ever. So, we have to take 2nd best. I’m not going to stop driving on public roads, despite my opposition to taxation, because the state has a virtual monopoly on road building.

          1. Sure JW. So if the government is going to something bad to some people by forcing them to live by the rules of family law, it must do the same thing to more people?

            If you think gays benefit from having access to government marriage, then you either think it is a good thing, in which case you should not support getting rid of it, or you don’t like gays and want to harm them.

            1. If then, John. If, then.

              Liberty isn’t about perfect or good outcomes under any or all circumstances. Sometimes liberty means a shit outcome at a personal level.

              You know that, but are pretending otherwise because of the bug up your ass over the homos.

              1. How utilitarian.

                1. How utilitarian.

                  In how state relates to rights under this system? Absolutely. Were you expecting something else from our masters?

                  I didn’t create the system. I can only try and not get fucked by it.

            2. John. Sweetie. Walk with me. Talk with me.

              Because these benefits and pitfalls both exist in reality, and I cannot figure out why you seem convinced they are mutually exclusive.

              Certain married couples just received the ability to sit by their dying spouse’s bedside without being thrown out by hospital staff. That is a good thing. That they also now get to deal with bullshit family court does not negate that the benefit happened.

              1. “Received”. Someone has been reading too many HuffPo comments, and that someone is me.

                “Recognized”.

              2. Certain married couples just received the ability to sit by their dying spouse’s bedside without being thrown out by hospital staff. T

                In your fucking head maybe. You still still believe that myth sweetie? And if it were ture, unmarried hetero couple were screwed too and are still screwed. Do they not matter?

                The lies you idiots tell yourselves sometimes.

                1. Mary, Mary, so contrary, why you gotta be a bitch about a simple disagreement? Was it the Ghostbuster’s quote? My new haircut?

                  I’d score your trolling for fights, but you seem perilously close to bursting a vein. Have a nice lie down and a glass of sweet tea. We’ll talk later.

              3. Certain married couples just received the ability to sit by their dying spouse’s bedside without being thrown out by hospital staff.

                I’ll call bullshit. This didn’t happen 30 yrs ago in Ohio, let alone today- and if you’re really worried, get a fucking medical POA.

          2. Run the problem in reverse. We all agree that CRA and entitlements are bad. Are you willing to eliminate them one protected class at a time as long as everyone ends up equal in the end even though that means there will be inequality along the way?

            1. I can’t force anything or anyone to consider all elements of liberty at one time. I can’t even wish for that. I’d be an idiot for thinking that.

              All I can do is sit by and watch the situation unfold.

              1. This isn’t a three body problem.

                1. Well, no, since Roberts determined that getting yummy treats as a reward, from the other 2 bodies, for being a good little justice is more important.

                  i’m really confused at your insistence the perfect should be the enemy of good.

                  1. Because it’s not universally good. You are dismissive of the bad aspects of this. You seem to value equality above all else. So I’ll pose my problem again. Assuming you don’t like the CRA (maybe you do), are you willing to dismantle it one protected class as a time until there are no protected classes? You should given that you profess to not require perfection but only goodness.

                    1. You are dismissive of the bad aspects of this.

                      No, I’m not. I’ll state again that rights aren’t dependent on good outcomes under all circumstances. Nazis get to march in Skokie. People get to own guns and sometimes shoot others in anger.

                      Assuming you don’t like the CRA (maybe you do), are you willing to dismantle it one protected class as a time until there are no protected classes? You should given that you profess to not require perfection but only goodness.

                      Sure, why not?

                    2. Ah, but there’s the rub because removing protected status from SSM today WOULD be dismantling the CRA one protected class as a time. So either you’re indifferent to what happened today, which would be consistent, or you’ve made two choices that are incompatible.

                    3. Yes, I am willing to do that, because you’re right.

                      It would be ideal if the whole thing got repealed at once. Failing that, pull the special classes one at a time if that’s what it takes.

                    4. Skippy certainly got the better of this exchange.

                    5. I vote for JW. Does that make it a tie?

                    6. No it just makes you wrong. But it does however make you cool. And that is what is really important.

                    7. Really? Your position is that I’m agreeing with JW in order to be cool, while elsewhere in the thread you claimed that you’re not just arguing with the libertarians in your head?

                    8. Really? Your position is that I’m agreeing with JW in order to be cool, while elsewhere in the thread you claimed that you’re not just arguing with the libertarians in your head?

                      John has a special antenna he uses to pick up social signals. We don’t have the heart to tell him it’s just a Twizzler wrapped in tinfoil.

                    9. I don’t know if that is why Scientist. You may really be wrong. I don’t know. But trust me you are cool. You are in the in crowd. Gays are the sacred class and you are defending them.

                    10. I’m getting skippy’s confusion now.

                      I’m saying that whether or not you have a right isn’t a utilitarian exercise. Full stop.

                      He’s trying to catch me saying that the process of expanding liberty can’t be a utilitarian exercise. I never said anything about that that.

                    11. No, you’re the one confused here. You are saying that the compromise of liberties that occurred today is a good thing. That is a utilitarian choice.

                    12. Nope. Bzzzzt.

                      I’m saying that the expansion of liberty is a good thing.

                      That’s it, nothing more. You and John can fill in the rest. Call it Gay Libs.

          3. IF the gubmint must be involved in marriage, THEN it should apply the law regarding marriage equally.

            But, if marriage means “man and woman”, does gay marriage mean the law is being applied equally, or the law is being broken?

            This isn’t about “equality”, or at least it isn’t until you get past the issues around definition.

            The amazing thing about this whole kerfuffle is the way the activists managed to win the entire battle while no one was looking, by just assuming into existence a new legal definition of marriage.

            1. Pretending that there is an objective definition of a contractual and interpersonal relationship is a cute new tactic.

              Peddle that shit elsewhere. I’m having none of it.

      2. TWO TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUES!!!!

        Or maybe not…

        1. Or maybe not…

          They are. One is equal protection, and expansion of liberty, the other is a abrogation of the freedom to associate.

          But the progs are going to happily fuse them together.

          1. They are presently inseparable. There is some expansion of liberty and some contraction. The only pure expansion of liberty is to blow up the latter.

            1. Under the current political climate, I don’t disagree.

              It’s a virtual certainty and that still didn’t stop my support of EP. Rights aren’t a utilitarian exercise.

              1. You just made a utilitarian choice.

                1. No, I made the choice to support expanding liberty in one area, knowing it would ultimately lead to a contraction in another.

                  Means, not ends.

                  1. So you value one liberty over another. How do you accomplish that without a utilitarian calculation?

                    1. I value all liberty equally. i can’t control the actions of others in what they do with that liberty, for or against it.

                      I’ll say it again: the enjoyment of rights isn’t a utilitarian formula. Liberty, in and of itself, is it’s own justification.

                    2. I value all liberty equally.

                      You’re just willing for some people to sacrifice their liberties (which you totally value!) so other people can gain the liberty to obtain a state license.

                      I admire your partial honesty that there are sacrifices being imposed here.

                      I think you’re wrong to believe that you value all liberty equally.

                      If liberty is its own justification, then how do you decide whether an expansion of liberty in one area justifies the contraction in another? You have to weigh them against each other somehow, so how do you do it?

                    3. You’re just willing for some people to sacrifice their liberties (which you totally value!) so other people can gain the liberty to obtain a state license.

                      Not. A. Utilitarian. Exercise.

                      I admire your partial honesty that there are sacrifices being imposed here.

                      I’ve been fully and completely honest with you on this from the start.

                      If liberty is its own justification, then how do you decide whether an expansion of liberty in one area justifies the contraction in another?

                      Did I say it justifies the contraction? In any form? No. Knowing the virtual certainty of an event isn’t endorsing it.

                      You have to weigh them against each other somehow, so how do you do it?

                      No weighing needed. The expansion of liberty is a good in and of itself. What other people do as a result is irrelevant of that liberty.

                    4. Yes JW. You have always been honest about your willingness to sacrifice the liberties of people you hate, religious people, for the sake of the liberties of people you like, gays. That is just so fucking noble of you.

                    5. That’s me John, Atheist Man. Scourge of the pious everywhere. I’m well known for that for my frequent pronouncements against the devout..

                      You got me. Yee faithful will tremble before my penetrating heterodoxpenis.

                    6. And go ahead and lash out at the Other, John. It’s what you do when your Kulturkamf panties are all wadded up inside and chafing.

                      It’s one of your more endearing qualities.

                    7. Go ahead JW jump on the band wagon to stick it to people you don’t like. The mob will never turn on you. Who gives a shit if a bunch of Fundies get fucked over this?

                      I am sure you will always be on the popular side and the Prog mob that is doing this will never come for you.

                      You won JW. You get to see the government and the courts oppress the shit out of people you hate. Be happy. Don’t let me rain on your parade.

                    8. I’m going out and ordering a cake tonight.

                    9. It’s what you do when your Kulturkamf panties are all wadded up inside and chafing

                      This is shrieking imbecile levels of projection.

                    10. Oh, do tell Marshall.

                      I’m on pins and needles. I can’t wait to hear how this turns out.

                    11. The tradeoff between liberties necessarily results in losing more of the one that you’re trading in for less of the one that’s expanding. I guess we have some physics in this thread already; it’s entropic. There is no free lunch and you can’t break even.

                    12. You can’t, but it is a utilitarianism of morals, which is both necessary and admirable, rather than the cruder utilitarianism of immediate outcome, which is a direct route to tyranny.

                      Any time you make a determination about whether an act of violence is permissible under the NAP, you make a calculation of moral utilitarianism: does this protect people’s rights than it violates them?

                    13. Any time you make a determination about whether an act of violence is permissible under the NAP, you make a calculation of moral utilitarianism: does this protect people’s rights than it violates them?

                      That’s a good point, but it’s a corollary to mine.

                      The existence of a right, the ability to enjoy it, isn’t a utilitarian exercise. Whether you have liberty or not isn’t and shouldn’t be dependent on a result of any particular outcome. If our rights were dependent on the certainty of a positive outcome, we’d all be feeling the whip and the jackboot on a daily basis. We’d only have what our masters choose to give us, which is little to none.

                      Now, how you exercise that right, can be utilitarian, if you so choose, but even then, that’s not a given. If I publish the Anarchists Cookbook, am I reducing or expanding overall liberty in the process of doing so? I’d say I’m expanding it, but in the hands of a sociopath, that could lead to a severely reduced outcome for someone else on a personal level.

      3. As Thomas said – the ruling invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here?roam at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the “‘fundamental rights'” protected by that document.

        But yipee

    4. I don’t think that will happen to any great extent. But if it does I will acknowledge that I was mistaken. Still doesn’t mean I will regret thinking what I do about the legal status of gay marriage. As I have said many times, I’m just saying what I think is right, not agitating for this specific outcome.

      1. Why do you think it won’t happen? I hope you are right Zeb. I really do. But what makes you think that? Do you ever listen to the gay rights activists? What makes you think they are drooling right now at the thought?

        1. I think most people are ready to move on. All of the people who aren’t hard core activists will lose interest now that the major issue is settled. Perhaps I am too optimistic. Now we get to find out.

    5. Reality is that the libertarians have little, if any, power to fight back against state oppression unlike our statist opponents. How many of the unreasonable force by cops episodes were protested by Libertarians? How many times are libertarians told to submerge themselves in the GOP rather than increase the size of the Libertarian Party? Libertarians are excluded from debates but don’t lie in the streets to protest. Ballot laws exclude Libertarians and we sue, usually without any positive result. Libertarians do not get in the faces of other people and demand to be heard so, yes, don’t expect much except “strongly worded letters” for any and all future state encroachments against liberty. That libertarians would even think about using woodchippers is ludicrous.

  35. The Scalia insult generator is a lot of fun. Mine:

    “One would think that Enough About Palin’s logic is like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being repeatedly killed and buried. There is no remedy for that.”

  36. So, anybody want to talk about not gay stuff? I’m kinda bored of it now.

    1. HOMOPHOBE!

    2. I tried talking about a TV show but had no takers.

      1. Yeah, but that TV show is kinda gay… which isn’t gay enough for today.

  37. So, a decade a two over whether transexuals have a right to change their birth certificate?

    What’s the next big distraction?

    1. The Saudi-Syrian Nuclear War?

      1. Nah, we’ll give that news for a day or two, then move on to how offensive it is to Norwegians that Viking caricatures are used in professional sports.

        1. Nah, Norwegians are privileged white people and are not allowed to be offended.

          1. Ah, but they are European and socialistic. It’s the next thing.

  38. # Reminder: the libertarian movement has been at the forefront of the cause of gay marriage for decades.

    D’ohhh!!
    THIS IS WHY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS

  39. Here we go!

    Right before he brings up the old polygamy argument, Somin writes; “If a sufficiently important right (Due Process Clause) is denied for discriminatory reasons (Equal Protection), then the Fourteenth Amendment has been violated.”

    Prohibitions against polygamy aren’t intended for discriminatory purposes. There are valid reasons for it. A child with ten parents really has no parents, and ten women with one husband are usually subservient in such arrangements. So the equivalence between same-sex marriage and polygamy fails.

    1. You could make similar arguments against gay marriage or even against some heterosexual marriages.

      1. Well, I’m ideologically consistent in a few regards:

        I believe any number of adults should be free to enter into any consensual contractual relationship they deem appropriate for their situation.

        I oppose marriage, full stop. I am opposed to heterosexual marriage, same sex marriage, polygamist marriage, incestual marriage, and fictional television agitprop marriages intended to create lemmings of the masses. I simply oppose the very institution.

        1. You mean the idea of state-regulated marriage or the voluntary association?

          1. The voluntary association itself. I’d never seek to prevent them from it (other than by arguing to my male friends in particular what a sham it is for a man), but I oppose it on philosophical grounds, at least in light of the state of family law in the US today.

            1. in light of the state of family law in the US today

              That’s a good point. A man has a lot more to lose in a divorce than a woman. I wonder how these inevitable gay divorces are going to go.

            2. I like my marriage fine. The problem with the institution is more the bizarre absurdity that is family law than it is the institution itself. But it’s not for everyone.

              1. Yeah that was kinda my point. Although I extend it a bit beyond mere family law and more that the problem with marriage is the culture today. Simply put, too many people view marriage as something other than a lifelong “for richer or poor, in sickness and in health” arrangement. Especially true with women in my experience (2/3 of divorce initiated by the woman), as they’re being inundated with messages of empowerment that encourage flightiness and solipsism and a reckless disregard for traditionally feminine virtues of supportiveness and loyalty.

                1. Well, part of my marriage’s success to date is that my wife and I both view it as a lifetime commitment, through the trials and tribulations that life likes to throw at us.

          2. Can’t speak for sudden, but yes. Stop state-regulated marriage.

    2. It would seem to me that a woman who is one in ten wives would be less subservient than one that is the only wife; namely she need only shoulder the burden of 1/10th of marital responsibilities (yes, I realize that many will consider the notion that a woman has any responsibilities in a marriage as antiquated. They’ll never dare suggest the same being true of men in a marriage). She only has to be 10% of his sexual relations, 10% of the housework/childrearing responsibilities, 10% of the emotional support, etc.)

      1. Traditional (har!) poly marriage tends to see more favoritism. So the hot new thing wife will be doing more than her 1/N of the share while the least favored wife will be doing less.

        1. I’ll have to build up my harem in order to test this hypothesis.

        2. Cite required.

    3. A child with ten parents really has no parents

      *** rising intonation ***

      “It takes a village ….”

      1. Yeah, marriage won’t matter so much when they come and take all of the kids to raise in special government parenting centers.

    4. There are valid reasons for it. A child with ten parents really has no parents, and ten women with one husband are usually subservient in such arrangements.

      [Citations needed]

      1. [Citations needed]

        As far as I’m aware, children in polygamist households don’t consider all of the adults to be their parents, and are well aware of who their mother is. (The father is usually, hopefully, obvious)

        1. Polygamy is not necessarily “one dude and his harem”. There any number of polyamorous/polygamist families with co-husbands, and/or co-wives (indeed co-parents). In families such as these, children DO consider them all parents. However, because of potential risks to these types of families imposed by governmental definitions (CPS, etc), children may need to be taught to be less than honest when dealing with outsiders.

          Families are families. Government should not be involved in defining relationships, period. There are no valid reasons to exclude poly relationships regardless of the weak protestations of the extremely hypocritical left.

    5. Prohibitions against polygamy aren’t intended for discriminatory purposes.

      Lying sack of shit. Tell me that Reynolds v. United States, the Edmunds-Tucker Act, the Reed Smoot hearings, or any other number of anti-Mormon government crap wasn’t exactly that.

    6. Polygamy is going nowhere. Gays are seen as part of the blue coalition, nice urbane liberal folk, so this is their reward, their cut of the spoils for being good little soldiers in the culture war. Polygamists are weirdo conservative religious folks in flyover territory (ie, red people) so they will get precisely jack and shit from a court composed almost entirely of blues. Freedom, love, and equality have nothing to do with it.

  40. anybody want to talk about not gay stuff? I’m kinda bored of it now.

    Robert Reich has some terrific stuff about wealth inequality and the Oppression of the Worker at his Christian Science Monitor blog. Reading it made me kind of nostalgic for the occupy Wall Street Days.

    1. I wish someone would gay marry him and stuff a Confederate flag in his mouth.

      1. Is surgical removal of the flag covered by SCOTUSCare?

        1. I dunno, let me see. . .yes, I squinted my eyes and saw those words in the act.

          1. Would you like to clerk for the Chief Justice?

  41. With decades long support for gay rights among libertarian theorists, shouldn’t there be a greater number of gay libertarians?

    Of course I must certainly be under-appreciating the actual number of gay libertarians as I do not actually know a single libertarian (or libertarian leaning person) in real life.

    Other than myself I also do not know a single non-progressive gay person. All are center-left to far left.

    But if we use the wood chipping community here as an approximation of libertarians, are there more than 5-6 out gay individuals here?

    1. “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”

      1. A LOT of people voted for Nixon in that election. It was a huge landslide defeat for McGovern. That means she had friends who lied to her, even in her little gilded cage.

    2. “With decades long support for gay rights among libertarian theorists, shouldn’t there be a greater number of gay libertarians?”

      I can think of a few just off of the top of my head. There aren’t many libertarians, I’d wager there is a greater percentage of gay ones than that of the general population.

      (I don’t know a thing about the commenters here though)

    3. Not a Libertarian|6.26.15 @ 5:30PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

      With decades long support for gay rights among libertarian theorists, shouldn’t there be a greater number of gay libertarians?

      You’re doing it wrong. Homos are pretty well represented in libertarian think tanks, there’s IGF if you need the warm embrace of libertarian leaning news and op-eds by homos for homos, and besides my friends in SF the center of gravity of my gay friends’ politics are center-left pragmatism or laissez faire (both economic and socially).

      I’ve mentioned before that I was with a random group of gays at a resort and my friend (from SF) mentioned he was excited about Elizabeth Warren, and the rest of them looked like they wanted to stab him. Most of them were either small business owners or worked in international trade.

      1. Libertarian gays are the good gays. It’s the leftist gays like Terrence Bean who are busy being indicted for pederasty. I guess the Human Rights Campaign will be lobbying to repeal age of consent laws soon too.

        1. Naturally, we’re a credit to our sexual orientation.

          1. All the hot libertarian men are gay. Then its just Epi, Warty, and I competing for who has the most body hair or most sexually liberated mother.

            this is why there are no libertarian women.

            1. Hey, are you saying I’m not hot!?

              1. The motorcycle helps. Though in theory I suppose I should defer on the subject to the experts.

            2. …Are you flirting with me, Sudden?

              Unrelated: we need to get people together for poutine.

              1. Yes. Smoke’s is actually pretty close to the STD testing clinic too. Only a red line stop or two away. I kinda still have to do that whole business, though I figure the cheapest and easiest STD test is to have unprotected sex with another stranger and then text her a week later saying hi and see what the response is like.

                1. Yeah, I noticed it was off the red line. I figured I’d go next time I went to get tested regardless of whether I had company.

                  Sigh. You still haven’t taken care of that?

                  1. Nah. The bump went away (still convinced it was an ingrown hair) and the whole cold didn’t seem that out of the ordinary (lotsa people around with that). I did go to a clinic in MacArthur Park one day to get a test, but because I showed up late they couldn’t confirm my insurance info until the next morning and so I decided the next morning that it’s probably best to go to a doctor that is accustomed to taking patients with private insurance instead of MediCal.

                    I working on putting together a date with a nice young lady this weekend so, like I said above, I should get my results back within a week.

                    1. I’m laughing, but you’re definitely going to hell.

    4. Here are some just off the top of my head:

      Tonio, Jesse, Rhywin (I think), Scott Shackford. I’m sure I’m missing a few.

      1. There are several more. If you include trans and gay female, quite a few more. And several bi that I’m aware of.

        1. I myself identify as a lesbian.

          1. TANLW, which by Vulcan logic clearly categorizes me as a gay man.

            1. I am a gay woman, a really hot one, trapped in the body of a pudgy male Jew.

            2. We’re like an opposite sex gay marriage waiting to happen.

              1. But then there would be no sex, you say, and I can’t be having with that. We can take turns hiding each other in closets, fair deal?

                1. Look, there are thousands of reasons (and potential symptoms) not to have sex with me, but identifying as a gay man via vulcan logic is probably not among them.

                  1. Quickest way into my manly gay pants is via laughter, so you’re on a roll.

    5. Re: Not a Smart Person,

      With decades long support for gay rights among libertarian theorists, shouldn’t there be a greater number of gay libertarians?

      But all libertarians are gay. They’re a very happy, easy-going bunch! I know very few gloomy libertarians!

      1. Really?!?!?

        I seriously cannot think of a single reason libertarians shouldn’t be gloomy and morose and fatalistic. Despite what Welch and Gillespie try telling us, there is nothing remotely approaching a libertarian moment out there now or anywhere on the horizon.

        1. Don’t you feeeeel the moment we’re having right now?

  42. There was some sort of terror attack.

    So rude, these ISIS guys.

    1. It’s Ramadan, they’re all hangry.

  43. Freedom to Marry, a pro-gay marriage group, will close its doors in a matter of months, its goals accomplished.

    Ha ha ha! Ahh, good one. Good one.

  44. “Politico’s Dylan Byers wonders about the ethics of journalism outlets unabashedly declaring their support for gay marriage.”

    Can’t have the priests of the Progressive Theocracy giving away the game to the peasants.

  45. If I’d known that today would be so full of such fine socon freakouts, I would have picked a different day to move. GAY REICH GOOBLE GOBBLE

    Fuck axle bearings, though. Could we get some freaking out about axle bearings? Cuz fuck axle bearings, dude.

    1. Axle bearings are what they use at the gay insertion ceremony, right?

      “You may now place the ball bearing in the groom’s ass.”

    2. I’ve never had any cause to malign axle bearings myself. But eccentric shaft main bearings? Those copper pussies can’t even handle a little lapping compound. Fuck those guys.

    3. How did you transport the dungeon?

      1. Lighten up Gilmore. It is fun to rain on their parade. They are so happy. Not only did they get what they want but they go to get something and have it be the same thing the Progs want. The Libertarians get to be one of the cool kids for a day. How can you not want to remind them that they are dorks and the Prog cool kids are not going to invite them to the after party?

        1. for the record I’m mildly mocking both people who are

          a) genuinely making these mooing sounds about how its really a terrible thing and how we’ll be sorry and shit

          AND

          b) people complaining about the people making these mooing sounds about how its like SoCons have taken over Reason and OMG its so *yokel*

          I think the gushing is gay, the moaning is gay, and that….ummmm….. ok let me try that again…

          – My view is that this “historic event” is in fact going to be the point beyond which no one really has to give 2 shits anymore. Everyone can get married now. Whee! Now you can shut up and be boring like everyone else.

          – and that while the legalistic details are concerning, its got to be the millionth time the SCOTUS just made shit up out of thin air. its not some watershed disaster for liberty so please stop trying to convince anyone it is.

          Hope that helps! now everyone can hate me equally

          1. You have distilled my thoughts to their perfect essence. And this line:

            I think the gushing is gay, the moaning is gay, and that….ummmm….. ok let me try that again…

            Were Shakespeare half the bard that you are, I’d have become an English Lit major (and Starbucks barista thereafter).

          2. I honestly don’t give a fuck about gay marriage. I think gays are going to rue the day they ever subjected themselves to family law. I also am sad to see the subversive and fun nature of gay culture end. Thanks to gay marriage, being gay no longer means being a subversive heathen, it means buying a Prious and putting a Warrent sticker on it and adopting children and becoming tiresome and boring.

            Lastly, I think the breakdown in the rule of law is going to end up harming gays a hell of a lot more than getting gay marriage will help them.

            1. I honestly don’t give a fuck about gay marriage.

              That must be why you write literally tens of thousands of words on the subject and get so obviously worked up over it that I have to stop reading your comments to occasionally wipe away the spittle flying at me from my monitor.

            2. it means buying a Prious and putting a Warrent sticker on it and adopting children and becoming tiresome and boring

              Do you also miss the “fun” old Times Square, with all the crime and hookers? Now it’s just “tiresome and boring”.

              This is just so stupid I don’t know where to begin.

              Yes, some gays want this lifestyle – and thanks mostly to changing American attitudes, it’s now perfectly acceptable most everywhere. I get your pain regarding the SCOTUS decision, but you’re projecting into so many delusional directions it’s head-spinning.

      2. I sure hate moving. It’s high on my list of things I hate doing. I also hate painting the house. Fuck that, that’s why we allow illegal immigration.

        1. Living in Texas has ruined me. So many things that I’d have had to do for myself, if I still lived in Kentucky, now just get contracted out to my local day labor center.

          1. The jefe lifestyle is addictive.

    4. I’ve seen far fewer snoconz freak outs than I have open celebrations of the courts decision of something they totally think is A-OK without any real transitive principle behind it about how the logic should extend to other areas. I’ve noticed a few dissents across the web, while I’ve been inundated with all sorts of commercial and otherwise apolitical organizations celebrating the court’s decision.

      Something approaching 60% of Americans currently believe that they are defenders of freedom because they have gay friends and would totally love to attend the fab wedding, but see nothing anti-freedom about the idea of banning the confederate flag (not merely removing it from statehouses; outright ban).

      1. see nothing anti-freedom about the idea of banning the confederate flag (not merely removing it from statehouses; outright ban).

        I’ve mostly seen calls to take it off of public buildings but not to ban it. People cheered when Amazon and ebay decided to pull it, but I think it started to sink in that this was going in a bad direction by the time Apple was pulling Civil War games.

        But selling art and historical materials are clearly different from an official endorsement of a hateful symbol. Historical items featuring Confederate imagery on eBay or a video game that depicts the American Civil War on Apple’s App Store must be understood in a different context when it comes to private citizens.

        It’s really as simple as the difference between the country’s endorsement of a bad idea and Joe Blow’s bad idea down the street. South Carolina probably shouldn’t have a pair of Truck Nutz hanging from its capitol building. But I fully support my neighbor’s right to have them on his Toyota Corolla.

        Giz isn’t really known for it’s libertarian leanings.

        1. Oh I’ve already encountered multiple people who believe that it should be banned entirely much the same way the Swastika is in Germany.

          1. Blech. I’ve seen some of that, but most the majority of responses I’ve seen are as above.

        2. Oh I’ve already encountered multiple people who believe that it should be banned entirely much the same way the Swastika is in Germany.

    5. Shot axle bearings cause tire wear. Insufficient tire inflation also causes tire wear. Barack Obama wanted to save America from the scourge of insufficient tire inflation, bad fuel economy, and tire wear. Shot axle bearings are therefore as racist as the Confederate Flag. QED

      1. A-. Could have used more capitalization.

        1. SHOT AXLE BEARINGS ARE A TEH MUZZLIM CONSPIRACY! DINESH D’SOUZA TOLD ME SO! WAKE UP AMERIKKKA! MULTIKULTURALIZZMMS!!!111!!!!

          Better?

          1. By the by, I name-checked you upthread.

            Dinesh was a nice touch there.

            1. By the by, I name-checked you upthread.

              Thanks, I saw that.

              I realize now that I was ignorant of the orificial distinctions in the matter of lube. I have micro-aggressed, and now prostrate myself before the community asking for its forgiveness.

              1. I thought you were a lube guy and instead are just a lube recipe guy. For that there is no forgiveness.

                1. So, I am the Rachael Ray of your sex life.

                  1. I hope you have nicer tits than she does.

                    1. Aw shucks, blushes. Pulls out shirt, looks down, sighs. Sorry, no.

                    2. You’re sicken me, tit-less boy.

                    3. *sobs*

                      God made me as I am, fucktick. Do not question the Lord!

          2. MUCH. GAY CONSPIRACYYYTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYS

            1. AXEL FOLEY IS BLACK AND STRAIGHT, SMART GUY! AND HIS FRIEND HAD BEARING BONDS. WHEELS, MAN. WHEELS!

    6. Gay Reich? Is that like the Third Reich, but with even more fabulous uniforms?

  46. What punishments* should be dolled out for the people who will now remark “now they can be miserable like the rest of us.”

    No woodchipper humor! I will not stand for it.

    1. Doled. My poor grammer and spelling are not worthy of this website (Nick was right).

  47. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out. http://www.Workweb40.com

  48. Could we get some freaking out about axle bearings? Cuz fuck axle bearings, dude.

    You haven’t lived until you’ve been stranded in the middle of nowhere Arizona because the wheel bearing on the trailer has failed so comprehensively as to get hot enough to weld itself to the axle and then rip the whole wheel, hub and axle assembly off, leaving the trailer frame dragging on the road in a shower of sparks.
    Good times, goooood times.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.