Gay Marriage

Is This Where Libertarians and the Gay Community Part Ways?

With little government-sponsored discrimination permitted in the United States any longer, what's left that both groups agree upon?

|

A celebration *and* an opportunity for some non-profit brand promotion.
Credit: tedeytan / photo on flickr

Just one day before the Supreme Court ruled that states must recognize same-sex marriages, Cato Institute's Executive Vice President David Boaz took to the website for gay publication the Advocate to inform readers about libertarians' and the Libertarian Party's lengthy historical support for gay rights. Libertarian Party support for ending the criminalization of gay behavior and for treating gay people equally under the law goes all the back to its first platform back in the 1970s.

In the 40-some-odd years since the Libertarian Party took such positions, we've seen the end of sodomy laws, the end of officially sanctioned government discrimination against gay employees, both civilian and military—and with Obergefell v. Hodges, the end of government bans on same-sex marriage recognition. We've seen the end of just about every government policy that treats gay and lesbian citizenry as somehow less than the heterosexual citizenry.

So: Is that it, then? Have supporters won, after all this time? Should we move on to other issues of liberty?

Some gay activists are warning that no, there is still work to be done. There are other issues of concern that affect the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. Top gay activist Michelangelo Signorile, predicting the gay marriage ruling and the subsequent celebrating, wrote a book-sized warning, titled It's Not Over: Getting Beyond Tolerance, Defeating Homophobia, and Winning True Equality. Even before the ruling, "What comes next?" analyses started popping up in the media.

But just because libertarians and gay citizens were aligned in the pursuit of ending government mistreatment, that doesn't mean other goals line up. Libertarians draw that bright, hard line between government behavior and private behavior. Others often do not, and what many gay activists see as justice and equality in the private sector, libertarians see as inappropriate government coercion.

Now that government gay marriage recognition is a settled matter, it's worth taking an inventory of political issues frequently raised within the LGBT community to see where values line up and where the fractures are.

Employment Nondiscrimination. Historically, fighting employment discrimination was actually the big political cause for gay leaders, not marriage recognition. There is a certain logic behind it: One would think that it would be easier to convince Americans not to discriminate against gays than to convince them to let gays marry.

But it hasn't worked out that way in the real world. The federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, introduced and reintroduced in Congress repeatedly over the last 20 years, has not passed. This is where gay rights supporters clearly want to pivot to next. The talking point is that there is no federal protection against anti-gay discrimination, and many states don't have their own laws. What this means is that, in 18 states, gay citizens can get fired by their bosses for getting married. At The Atlantic, Robert Jones presents this as a theoretical possibility.

But is that a realistic evaluation of outcomes? A lot of the push for employment nondiscrimination laws is based upon the possibility of discrimination, based on historical trends, not the reality of the current climate. There's a fear that because the law allows an unwanted thing to happen, then it's going to happen. But there's been a huge culture shift in support of the letting gay people live their lives as they choose. Big corporations with products to sell have been celebrating gay pride in June and marketing themselves to gay customers. From the perspective of a libertarian, where is the evidence that anti-gay employment discrimination is an actual, widespread phenomenon that is not lessening on its own and requires government intervention?

Solid numbers aren't easy to come by. It's not easy to determine whether somebody is actually discriminated against for being gay or transgender unless the employer is honest about it (and sometimes they are). The Williams Institute, which researches sexual orientation and gender identity issues at UCLA, has aggregated a bunch of studies starting from the 1990s that rely on self-reported claims of workplace discrimination. The numbers vary extremely widely, from 16 percent to 44 percent, making it a challenge to look at the report and to come to any real conclusions. They warn about the limitations of the studies that because those polled are relying on their own evaluation of workplace discrimination that may or may not exist (and the reverse could also be true—employees may not even know if they've been discriminated against due to their sexual orientation).

The report also looked at how many complaints states that had actual laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation actually received. When the report was written in 2002, California, the largest state, had all of 154 complaints, compared to 8,232 complaints of gender discrimination. Granted, the number would naturally be smaller because of the smaller population of gay and lesbian citizens. A more recent study using fake job applications found a gap in positive employer responses, ranging from none up to 8 percentage points in some states, between candidates who indicated involvement in gay organizations on resumes and those who did not.

What none of this social science can determine is a threshold through which it should be considered justified for the government to intervene in private employment practices. In general, libertarians and gay leaders have been in agreement against anti-gay discrimination by government employers and by the military. As the government answers to (and takes tax dollars from) all citizens, including the gay ones, the government should logically and ethically treat people the same regardless of sexual orientation.

But in the private sector, there has got to be something more than a bunch of unpopular hiring decisions before turning to the leviathan to punish bad actors under the color of law. It used to be that the biggest enemy of gay people in the workplace was the federal government itself. As culture shifts, it would be more appropriate to use influence in the private sector to bring about changes in private sector hiring practices. There is little reason to fear that a mass firing spree will be the result of a growing public support for gay and lesbian citizens living their lives as they please. When it does happen, we have a lot of cultural tools—social media, boycotts, bad publicity—to press for reform without calling for government sanctions.

Religious Freedom Exemptions. Even more than anti-discrimination employment laws, there is a significant philosophical divide between libertarians and many gay activists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and state-level civil rights commissions over the responses to religious business owners not wanting to provide their goods and services for gay weddings. We're now seeing additional suggestions that religious colleges could be punished for not accommodating gay couples, and even an early suggestion that churches should not have non-profit status any longer.

The freedom to choose with whom to associate is a fundamental human and Constitutionally protected right. The ability to engage freely in commerce another one. Anybody with any doubts about the importance of free commerce to human liberty is encouraged to ask a nearby Venezuelan about the alternatives. As such, libertarians have consistently been supporting the rights of religious businesses and individuals to say "No thanks" to potential customers.

To be clear, though: This position is not entirely about religion. That happens to be the framework for this debate because the people who want to discriminate against gay customers are doing so for religious reasons. The practice of religion, also a fundamental right, is deeply tied into how some people express with whom they associate and what business practices they endorse. As long as these individuals do not violate the rights of others, they should be free to do so.

A wedding cake is not a right. A wedding photographer is not a right. Everybody has the right to engage in commerce. We have the right to buy and sell our services and goods, but it must be voluntary on both ends of the exchange. Nobody has the right to force the baker, the photographer, or anybody else to work for them in a free country. The exchange of money doesn't make it acceptable.

When defending accommodation laws used to force religious people's hands, the response tends to be something along the lines of "A business is not a church. If religious folks want to run a business, they can't use their beliefs to ignore the law. Those who choose to run a business have to follow all the government regulations."

This argument flips the idea of civil liberties completely on its head and attributes the source of our rights to the government, a contradiction of the spirit of our own Constitution. If somebody said "If people choose to speak out they have to follow all the government regulations," most people would immediately wonder: "What sort of regulations are we talking about? We have freedom of speech. The government can't just pass any regulations they want to control what people say."

The same should hold true for people's right to engage in commerce. Any law or regulation that inhibits the right of individuals to choose with whom to associate needs to immediately be treated as suspect. In order to justify restrictions or mandates on this freedom, the government should be required to prove that a significant amount of harm is the result of inaction.

That's obviously not the case here. Nobody has presented a credible argument that gay couples have been completely unable to buy wedding cakes or rent photographers. There is no actual "harm"—just inconvenience. The vast majority of businesses across the country are more than happy to serve gay citizens. A handful of holdouts in non-essential services is not a good reason to bring to bear the full force of government to fix. It is callous and selfish to use the state to go after small businesses and try to extract fines from them or shut them down over a problem that barely even exists anymore. It is very clearly an effort to punish people for holding disfavored opinions or positions, something that used to happen with great frequency to gay people and their allies. Flipping the switch on who is punished by the state is not justice. Turning the machine off entirely is what we should all be calling for. On this issue libertarians will likely continue to stand with the religious holdouts for the foreseeable future, even if it's on "the wrong side of history." It's on the right side of liberty.

You do you.
Vanity Fair

Transgender Recognition. While libertarians may be splitting with the gay and lesbian community on issues of discrimination and religious freedom, there's still many issues that need to be resolved over the way the federal government treats transgender people.

Fundamental to liberty is the right to personal identity and expression. This includes gender. Transgender citizens have the same right as everybody else to live their lives as they please without unnecessary government interference. There's a lot that we still don't know about how gender is expressed biologically, genetically, and psychologically. Those are issues for science to explore. As a legal and ethical matter, though, it generally shouldn't matter why somebody identifies as transgender. It's their right. In the event that somebody decides to pose as transgender in order to engage in some sort of fraud or criminal behavior, there are already laws to punish such actions. But there's very little evidence that anybody identifies themselves as transgender in order to spy upon or harass other people in vulnerable locations like bathrooms or locker rooms. It is a paranoid response to the unfamiliar "other."

And so it would be appropriate that in any situation where the government treats a transgender person on the basis of his or her identity it respects their form of gender expression. That means the government should allow for any official documentation—such as a driver's license—that requires the listing of a person's sex to match the identity by which a person lives, as much as it's feasibly possible.

Probably of greater importance, in any situation where the government is forcing transgender folk to remain in their custody for long periods of time, be it prison, immigration detention, or simply public schools or jury duty, their needs must be accommodated. Contra some people's fear that transgender folks are targeting them for some sort of sex crime, when in government detention, the transgender citizen is more likely to be targeted for sexual assault in prison or government detention.

Transgender citizens are seeing some big inroads both culturally and legally, and we should all see these generally as positive developments. Last week, a transgender activist heckled President Barack Obama at a gay pride event over the federal government's poor treatment of transgender immigrants. She was booed and shouted down by the gathered gay activists. But just days later immigration officials announced they will make an effort to try to detain transgender immigrants who end up in their custody by their gender preferences.

All of the previous positions are about the relationship between transgender citizens and the government. The libertarian trend of separating government and private treatment continues here. Transgender citizens have the right to demand the government treat them fairly and with dignity. In the private sector, it's all a matter of cultural negotiation and voluntary agreements. The law should not be used to mandate private recognition of transgender needs, whether it's requiring insurance companies cover gender reassignment surgeries or requiring private businesses to accommodate their bathroom choices. The reverse is also true: It would be inappropriate for the government to forbid insurance coverage or to require private businesses to police their own bathrooms to keep transgender folks out.

As long as the transgender community is focusing on how the government is treating them, libertarians should support their activism. But change in the private sector is manifested by cultural and social engagement, not yet more laws.

Adoption. Earlier in June, Florida officially ended its ban on gay parents adopting children. It was mostly a symbolic gesture. The courts actually struck down the law down in 2010.  It is now legal all across America for gay people to adopt children, and now with same-sex marriage, they can adopt their partner's child as well. This fight is largely over, and was actually pretty much won even before gay marriage recognition.

But there is another side, and it ties back into the treatment of religious people. Some adoption agencies are tied to religious groups who do not want to serve same-sex couples or place children in same-sex homes. They are also typically recipients of state funding for placing children, and are therefore subject to state regulation. Should they be required to serve gay couples?

Some states, such as Illinois, attempted to force them. As a result, Catholic Charities, which helped the state find adoptive and foster home services for four decades, stopped providing their services in 2011. At the time, a gay activist declared this a victory, saying "Finding a loving home for the thousands in the foster/adoption system should be the priority, not trying to exclude people based on religious dogma."

But this statement is a huge misreading of how the adoption process works, and the agency's closure probably ended up making it harder for some kids to find homes. For some insight, we turned to Walter Olson, a senior fellow from the Cato Institute and a contributing editor to Reason. He's also gay and the parent of an adopted child.

In Olson's experience, the more agencies out there serving the needs of the children looking for homes, the better. The existence of Catholic Charities in the pool of adoption agencies does not prevent gay couples from accessing the same pool of children looking for homes through other agencies. Much as with the controversies over bakers and florists, being denied service by one agency does not actually impact a gay couple's ability to find and adopt children at all. But eliminating Catholic Charities from the pool reduces the number of people able to help place these children. It's the children who are punished by the politicization of adoption, not Catholic Charities. This is especially important when dealing with older children or children with special medical needs.

"There have been two groups of angels who have stepped in again and again," to adopt children in difficult situations, Olson explained. And those groups are "the gays and the highly devout religious people."

Children in the system do not gain anything by politicizing adoptions and preferencing one side over the other. Allowing both sides (and others as well) to play their role as they see fit benefits all children in the system.

As for the concern that some adoption agencies take taxpayer money and then discriminate, Olson points out that it's much more expensive to the taxpayers to leave children to be raised by the state, not to mention terribly cruel. "If you don't care about the kids or the families, at least care about the taxpayers," Olson says. But you should probably care about the kids, too.

Some teens in the system may be gay and we want the system to be able to place them. But some kids in the system may also be very devout themselves, and they have as much a right to find a family where they could fit. Fighting against religious adoption agencies doesn't create a better system. It hurts kids. This is not an either/or scenario. Our highly decentralized adoption process can cater to everybody without forcing out organizations guided by religious principles, even if such principles lead to overt discrimination.

Bullying in Schools. For the past decade we've seen increased attention to the suicide rates of gay, lesbian, and transgender teens. It inspired Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" video project. It may seem counterintuitive that gay suicides could still be such a serious problem, given that American culture has become so remarkably more tolerant to gay and transgender people than just a decade ago.

But as a result of these cultural changes, we have teens coming out of the closet at a much younger age, at a time where they and all their peers are still hammering out their identities and learning the intricacies of cultural navigation. Bullying is an outcome of this push and pull. It is not harmless, but it is normal.

As such, whatever is done to try to curtail bullying needs to be managed with the understanding that we are dealing with children on both sides of the issue. There is a danger when we look at bullies from the viewpoint of an adult and judging them as though they're adults.

The libertarian concern here is, just as with the other issues, using the state or the law to punish people—in this case, children—when there are better social tools for this battle. We should hold schools responsible for keeping students physically safe while in their custody. But before considering new policies or laws with the intention of fighting bullying, activists need to remind themselves that public schools now have absolutely terrible, oppressive disciplinary policies that they use to discard students at the first sign of trouble. The last thing we need is more "zero tolerance" policies. As it stands, we have children and teenagers being arrested by police for common school misconduct and their families forced to deal with costly and time-wasting court systems. It is an absurd outcome that actually threatens children's futures. It does not protect them.

In this case, school choice is a benefit to gay teens. If a student finds himself in an unhospitable environment with an unhelpful administration (these two situations often run in tandem), rather than having to fight the school district over it, parents should be empowered to yank their kids out and find a better environment for their kids. Not only does such a system protect the emotional health of gay teens, it creates the appropriate economic incentives (because schools get money based on student attendance) to push schools to consider changes that don't involve potentially disastrous "one-size-fits-all" solutions. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Deadline Today: Intern at Reason This Fall!

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. A wedding cake is not a right. A wedding photographer is not a right. Everybody has the right to engage in commerce. We have the right to buy and sell our services and goods, but it must be voluntary on both ends of the exchange. Nobody has the right to force the baker, the photographer, or anybody else to work for them in a free country. The exchange of money doesn’t make it acceptable.

    This more than anything else is why libertarianism is incompatible with any contemporary rights movement that is owned by liberals and progressives.

    We are not, nor have we ever been, operating under the same principles and morals. Progressives think it is okay to steal and coerce, libertarians think that is immoral. The idea that because we agree (broadly on ends, never entirely on means) means we can get through to them on a more basic level has always been a fantasy.

    1. Yep. What they call justice, we call injustice, and vice versa. Huge, deep divides in morals, values, and preferences.

      1. And they literally cannot understand our point of view. I read Rachel Maddow’s response to Rand Paul’s column that said that this is the time to get rid of civil marriage, and she was just utterly perplexed. It was completely alien to her.

        1. Some of them can, just like some of us can understand theirs. But others of us just think they are nonsensical, illogical, emotional, etc., because writing them off as confused is easier than accepting that they really do differ from us in fundamental ways.

          1. Well, I still can’t wrap my head around the idea that some people actually believe in gods. So there I go, I guess.

            1. But what about the god of war?

              1. What does Nick Cage have to do with this? Oh wait, that’s Lord of War.

            2. You’re not invited to the Wild Hunt.

              1. Just because you’re not invited to it doesn’t mean you can’t be swept up in it. Those souls aren’t just gonna sacrifice themselves, ya know.

            3. Well, I still can’t wrap my head around the idea that some people actually believe in gods.

              Probably because you’re understanding them too literally. The gods and/or the people, I mean.

        2. You do have to consider that Rand Paul doesn’t like gays. Really, really doesn’t. Nor does his father, regardless of what they may now feel comfortable saying. I remember when Ron refused to use my friend’s bathroom, decades ago, because he was gay and he thought gays were icky. Didn’t keep him from trying to get the gay LP vote, of course, which my friend could provide. He just refused to use his bathroom.

          I would go further and say that Rand Paul is definitely not a libertarian.

          1. One need not like a person to believe they have certain rights. In fact the hallmark of a principled libertarian type is believing a person whose lifestyle choices you abhor has a right to that lifestyle.

            1. ^^^This

          2. Sometimes a doctor doesn’t want to use a bathroom because they think it’s too dirty, even if they may be slobs in some ways themselves. My father was a doctor, & he didn’t mind messing up our downstairs bathroom with his used paper towels if it meant he didn’t have to come near the garbage to dispose of them properly.

          3. Some people don’t like to use “unfamiliar” bathrooms.

            My wife gets angry that I wait to go until I get home.

        3. No, I think they understand our POV perfectly well. The see it works in their favor some of the time, in their disfavor some of the rest of the time, & frequently it’s irrelevant to their desires. Liberty is the way stn. between prohib’n & mandate.

      2. Gays constitute less than 2% of the population leaving gay folks with far fewer potential sex partners than non-gays. Clearly under a disparate impact analysis this is evidence of blatant discrimination. 48% of the population must be designated as available for anal or turkey baster assisted sexual encounters and delivered by bailiffs, along with yes-means-yes waivers, as reparations to the plaintiffs immediately.

      3. Jonathan Haidt’s book _The_Righteous_Mind_ was enlightening to me on this topic. Individuals differ in their non-rational moral “tastes”, which imply different values. People build elaborate rationalizations on top of these non-rational foundations.

    2. A wedding cake is not a right. A wedding photographer is not a right.

      To put it more succinctly, the labor of any other person is not a right.

      -jcr

      1. (Except cops and judges.)

        1. Since when do wedding bakers and photographers get paid and employed by Federal, state and local governments??

          We are not entitled to the labor of a Brinks security guard. A police officer, is a different animal, though (pun fully intended). Government employees work for a government which (is supposed to) serves its citizens.

          False equivalency is sooooo 2014, Tony.

          1. So long as cops and judges count as “persons” then John C. Randolph’s dictum applies. Who cares who cuts their check? Libertarians who aren’t anarchists think they are entitled not only to the labor of cops and judges, but to force other citizens to cough up the money that pays their salaries.

            1. Cops have every right to end their duties whenever they like, as do judges, if they are unhappy with the terms of their employment. Better example would be military, and even then they signed up as indentured servants. Also you’re a dummy.

              1. The same is true for literally everyone who is not a slave.

                1. You’re almost there, ‘Tony’, but you can’t quite seem to draw the logical conclusion.

                2. Yes….??? So if you can end your service on your terms, no one has a right to your labor, riiiight? Come on now, flex that little brain.

                3. Cops and judges agreed to serve all citizens equally as terms of their employment. They may have even taken an oath (I don’t know the details). But no one forced them to take that job.

                  A baker or photographer or any number of other professions did not agree to serve everyone equally.

                  But why can the government set the terms of employment for cops and judges and not set the terms of opening or working at a business? Because its the government that employs cops and judges. Business owners and their employees don’t work for the government.

                  It is literally that simple.

                  1. A baker or photographer or any number of other professions did not agree to serve everyone equally.

                    They most certainly did, at the same time they agreed to follow all the other laws of the land. Just as with a cop or a judge, they made a free choice to enter a profession that serves the public.

                    1. at the same time they agreed to follow all the other laws of the land

                      Doing someone threatening to take your money or your business or your freedom is not the same thing as agreeing, any more than you might “agree” to give money to a mugger.

                      a profession that serves the public

                      Bakers don’t serve the public. They serve customers. And as business owners, they should be free to choose their customers.

            2. Libertarians who aren’t anarchists think they are entitled not only to the labor of cops and judges, but to force other citizens to cough up the money that pays their salaries.

              That someone can so consistently offer up such unconsciously self-contradictory twaddle as you over the years is one of the wonders of the modern age, along with Sally “I’m upset because my daughter is attracted to boys” Kohn.

            3. “Libertarians who aren’t anarchists think they are entitled not only to the labor of cops and judges, but to force other citizens to cough up the money that pays their salaries.”

              The only intelligent thing to be typed by Tony

            4. Just because the minarchist makes an exception for police and armed forces does not logically imply that they must support taxation for other purposes.

              I agree that minarchism is not completely internally consistent in that it holds property is sacred except for the provision of the minimal state. But the existence of this one contradiction does not mean that the minarchist must accept that the state has a role in other realms. Of course, anarcho-capitalists are unburdened by any such contradictions.

              I’ll also note that modern progressivism is similarly plagued by internal contradictions. Why may the state force me to pay for the education of another, but may not force me to say (or not say) certain things, or force me to follow or not follow a particular religion? It’s a major flaw in the Murphy-Nagel conception of property rights; that is, if property exists only at the behest of the state and ownership is a myth, couldn’t the same be side of the right to speech, religion, assembly, and even of life itself?

              1. I agree, that if the NAP is your guiding principle, any government is a contradiction.

                My tenets are:

                1. A person may do as they choose, provided they do not infringe upon the rights of another.

                2. The only legitimate role of government is to protect the negative rights of the individual.

                There is good reason for this. It maximizes liberty. Liberty is a balancing act when it comes to government. Without government (an overwhelming last word in force) someone will take your liberty from you. Some country will eventually invade and take your shit or some group who has more muscle than your group will steal your shit. On the other hand, a government given too much power will itself take your shit. That’s why, limiting the power of government to that which protects people’s rights is the maximization point of liberty (for all).

                So while still a contradiction (2 violates 1 by requiring taxes) it is a perfectly reasonable place to limit government power if your goal is to maximize liberty for everyone.

                1. I agree, but Tony seems to think this is some type of “gotcha” observation. What I fail to see, and what Tony has so far failed to explain, is why the minarchist, because of this one exception, has to accept all the other roles of government that Tony advocates.

                  1. Because his argument is if the government provides positive rights in the form of military and courts, then it should be perfectly acceptable to provide healthcare, education, welfare…

                    He doesn’t care about maximizing liberty for all…just about getting free shit and justifying theft to accomplish that end.

                    1. I don’t even see the government providing courts and the military as a positive right (i.e., an individual right granted by the government), anyway, just a good way to do what you’ve said, which is to maximize liberty and minimize arbitrary power. That’s also the point behind the concept of equal protection of the laws – to minimize arbitrary power, not to provide some positive right to some thing.

                      The rule of law is all about minimizing arbitrary power, since ideally the law is based on sound reasoning and a genuine respect for individual liberty.

                      Private individuals and groups can aggress against other private individuals and groups as surely as the government can. In fact, there does not always exist a bright line between who the government is and who it isn’t. The rule of law helps reveal where that line is, and in so doing hopefully eliminates or at least restricts that arbitrary power.

                      The problem with Tony’s line of reasoning is that he thinks my refusal to provide him my labor or property, absent some prior voluntary contract to the contrary, is the same thing as denying him his right to “life” and “liberty,” as if his using the force of government to coerce me into providing for his livelihood is the same kind of “life” and “liberty” that the rule of law is meant to protect and not just an infringement on my life and my liberty.

                  2. He doesn’t, he merely can’t use the argument that taxation is evil theft and government is inherently bad because it commits violence–the only aspects of government you permit are the ones that actually commit violence. You have to defend your minarchist system on its merits–why is it good for people? Because it doesn’t conform to your principles.

                    1. he merely can’t use the argument that taxation is evil theft

                      Taxation is theft from an anarchist’s perspective in that property is being taken without consent of the owner.

                      If there is government, revenue is required to run it. That means some sort of tax. While distasteful, it’s a necessary evil, should be equitable and certainly minimized.

                      When people give you a hard time for being the immoral piece of shit that you are it’s because of the structure of the current tax code, where 47% of the population pays no FIT and the top 20% pays 69%, and you have no problem with it. That’s WAY above and beyond what the anarchists are talking about. That is outright taking from one and giving to another.

                      I favor a system where everyone has skin in the game and the amount paid corresponds to the amount used.

                      and government is inherently bad because it commits violence

                      Violence is only evil if it is initiated.

                    2. Imagine we all agree to have cops and military, but they will be paid for by donations.

                      This would remove taxation.

                      But, some people would say that’s not fair, and the cops will treat the donors better, so we should all pay them same.

                      OK, then we have taxes, but the advantage will be the cops have to provide service for all.

                    3. “Violence is only evil if it is initiated.”

                      The unwarranted threat of violence is pretty darn evil too.

          2. We* already are entitled to the labor of others. We* get to take part of their earned income from the labor they perform and we* get to decide how to use it. And if we* don’t like they way they run their business we* can take even more, all, and/or throw them in jail.
            /Tonyderp

            *We are government

        2. Cops and judges are forced into their positions and made to perform against their will?

          Hell, speaking descriptively now, hasn’t it been declared that cops don’t have an obligation to serve you?

          1. It’s even worse than that, the courts have ruled the cops have no obligation to protect anyone.

        3. “(Except cops and judges.)”

          This statement can only be the product of something marginally sentient.

        4. Where the fuck do you get this shit? You are fucking insane.

      2. If only there were some word to encompass the idea of forcing someone to engage in labor that they do not wish to engage in…

        1. The draft?

          1. that’s two words VP Biden

        2. Corvee? Robot? Servitude? Slavery? Thralldom? Serfdom? Peonage? Conscription? Pressed? Shanghaied?

    3. It’s two completely different world views. Progressives consider their own emotional reactions to be Capital-T Truth in terms of both epistemology and morality.

    4. ‘Tis the problem of rightsism, dear sir. Everyone wants to talk about rights, few want to talk about liberties and consent.

      1. Except when they’re taking about the necessity of affirmative consent to have one’s hand held or be kissed on the cheek.

    5. So what is the motiv’n of “progressives”? I think it’s simply the upsetting of whatever they see in society around them. If society generally frowns on X, they’re for X. If society generally likes X, they’re against it. Whatever will upset the most people the most.

  2. There’s a lot that we still don’t know about how gender is expressed biologically, genetically, and psychologically. Those are issues for science to explore.

    If somebody believes they live on Mars, there could be all kinds of clinical reasons why that is so.

    1. There has always been delusional people, but this to be the only time in history where society has decided to join the delusional in the delusions. It’s an odd thing. I don’t really understand it. I think it’s a misguided attempt at tolerance.

      1. but this to be the only time in history where society has decided to join the delusional in the delusions

        Meh, mass delusions and moral panics are historical things.

        This is just the modern iteration of the same phenomenon.

        1. Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

          Mackay, 1852.

          I’m sure there are similar works from antiquity as well.

      2. I don’t really understand it.

        And yet you are not going to allow a little thing like not understanding it to stand in the way of having a very loud opinion on the subject, now are you.

        1. I work with the mentally ill in my line of work. I used to work with a guy who would randomly start beating his head against the table to the point he would physically hurt himself. I did not understand it, I still don’t understand it, but I would never even dream of encouraging him to do so, or telling him it’s ok. The man had a serious mental illness, mental illness is not well understood, it’s never even clearly defined.

          1. mental illness is not well understood, it’s never even clearly defined.

            You mean, mental illness is not determined based on pathology, but based on…politics? Could it be politics?

            1. What on Earth could possibly be political about a person smashing their head against a table?

              I’m convinced now that some commenters apparently don’t believe that mental illness exists at all. A personal with Schizophrenia is just what? Realityed different?

          2. Meh. I work with the mentally ill in my line of work as well. The difference is, because a mentally ill person may walk into my restaurant I do not think that makes me qualified to discuss them on the internet from some bullshit “argument from authority” position.

            So, what are you? The janitor? Food service? CNA? Might as well let us know the full extent of this awesome authority you possess, so long as you bring it up. Don’t be coy.

            1. I worked on an ambulance, frequently doing psyche transfers criss-crossing the state. All I learned about mental illness is some of it is fucking scary, and some of it is harmless, and some is hilarous, and a lot of it really really sad – kinda like everyone.

            2. Yet you are discussing this on the internet aren’t you? All I’ve stated was that I don’t understand why society celebrates this, and for that I get attacked by you. Why? Is this a personal issue for you? Why all the hostility why the snark? What exactly is your opinion on this? You never actually seem to state any.

              Also I was giving an example of someone with mental illness, an example that you ignored, that is not an appeal from authority, in fact I even stated that I don’t understand why he does it, only that I wouldn’t encourage it. Would you?

              So lets just cut through all the bullshit, and get to the crux of the matter. Do you believe that mental illness in any form whatsoever exists? And if someone engages in self-destructive behavior should we encourage it? If someone wants to cut off their hand because they believe their dog told them to should we has a society or you as an individual tell them “go ahead”?

              It’s a complex issue isn’t it?

      3. NO, this isn’t the “Only time in history”. Look up The Emperor Norton for an example. But it’s usually been on a case by case basis, rather than “These delusions are OK, those other’s aren’t”.

        I can’t say I’m comfortable with either vocal side of this issue. On the one hand, no these people aren’t “just” nuts. They may be insane, but lots of people, maybe even most people, are gone in the head on one thing or another. On the other hand, no, if you were born with a penis, you aren’t a woman. And, given the present state of biological science, you aren’t going to be. What you dress as is your business.

        Gender reassignment surgery should stop. It is mutilation. it may be mutilation that the patient wants, but I am unpersuaded that it has not been presented fraudulently for decades.

        And, as an aside, I notice that the one thing nobody has mentioned about Bruce Jenner;

        He was a gold medal winner. That takes a degree of focus not just bordering on monomania, but well into the middle of downtown. So we already knew he wasn’t normal.

        1. So, then circumcision, too?

          1. There are, or so I read, medical arguments for circumcision, and it does not appear to result in depression and suicide in a large proportion of patients. Also, I really think the actual scope of Gender Reassignment Surgery has been ignored in favor of at the “Sex change” fantasy, which strikes me as fraud. I’ve read accusations against circumcision along the same lines, but am not convinced.

            Make a case?

            1. There are medical arguments for gender reassignment surgery, for their mental health.

              Also, even if it is just mutilation, how is it any of your business if they choose to do it? It’s their fucking body, not yours.

              1. I don’t think anybody is pining for laws banning gender reassignment surgery, but I may be wrong.

                I’m of the opinion that anybody who wants to treat a mental condition with physical surgery (brain surgery exempted) is worthy of a fuckton of skepticism. We have a billion drugs on the market that alter brain chemistry in a hundred billion different ways. Are you telling me that we have cocktails of drugs that treat anxiety, depression, psychosis, schizophrenia, etc. but gender dysphoria is a road too far? It would seem to my untrained eye that “pop these two pills each day and your feelings will return to normal” is a much more ethical treatment than “we’re going to mutilate your genitals in a procedure that has been shown to have abysmal results in terms of alleviating the mental health issues, but you will have an entire political party who does everything they can to make you feel like you made the right decision.”

                1. He calls it fraud, which generally requires legal action.

                  I’m just going to leave it up to transgenders and their doctors and not presume to know better than they do what is best for themselves. I’m also not going waste a second of my life wondering what type of gentalia people have or what they used to have because it’s frankly not important unless I’m entering a romantic relationship with them.

                  1. I think it is being presented fraudulently. I don’t want to ban the surgery, just the fraud.

                  2. I’m just going to leave it up to transgenders and their doctors and not presume to know better than they do what is best for themselves. I’m also not going waste a second of my life wondering what type of gentalia people have or what they used to have because it’s frankly not important unless I’m entering a romantic relationship with them.

                    Agreed, except that it’s becoming the next issue to bump up into the CRA. I’m just waiting for the F2M transgender Catholic to sue their local diocese for not letting them become a priest. Or, hell, when a couple tries to get a wedding cake baked, and the anti-transgender baker knows that one of them used to be the opposite gender.

                    Color me skeptical of the transgender movement for the same reason I was skeptical of the gay movement. The CRA is a massive confounding factor when it comes to what is “celebrated” by society.

                    1. While almost all of us here oppose anti-discrimination laws that apply to the private sector, that ship has long since sailed. Adding transgenders is just a small drop into the giant bucket of free-association violations. While wrong to force a baker to make a gay wedding cake it is no more wrong than forcing them to bake a cake for a black person.

                    2. Except their are religious objections to gay marriage not so much for serving a cake to a black person. I think the religious aspect makes the situation worse, forcing someone to choose between their religious convictions or being sued out of business is a terrible position to put someone in.

                2. The primary problem with using drugs to treat mental illness are the many undesirable side effects, but I agree with your general proposition. If a guy came into a doctor’s office using a coat hanger to pull the door shut while he hobbled along on a stick strapped to his knee and said “Arrr doc, I be a pirate on the inside but a landlubber on the out!” I doubt there would be a long line of doctors whose first prescription would be amputation of his otherwise healthy hand and leg.

              2. If I was sure that the effects weren’t being oversold, I might agree. My impression, however, is that it IS being oversold. It doesn’t change your gender, just your appearance, and there are studies that I would like to see examined more closely, that seem to indicate that that isn’t enough to sustain the positive menial health effects.

                1. Nobody say it changes your gender, the surgery (along with hormone therapy) is just to better match your body to your gender.

                  If someone is claiming that the surgery change your sex that could be fraud, but I’ve never seen anyone claim that.

                  1. The name itself – “Gender Reassignment Surgery” – says that it changes your gender, though not as blatantly as the term “Sex Change” that was popular in the ’70’s.

                    1. Essentially Gender Reassignment Surgery is a very complex plastic surgery. It doesn’t change the nature of the person getting it anymore than a nose job. The argument can be made that gender reassignment an extension of the many plastic surgeries performed on millions.

              3. There are medical arguments for gender reassignment surgery, for their mental health.

                I’ve seen studies where 40% who complete their transition attempt suicide…

                Even SSRI’s only have a 2-3% suicide rate- GRS doesn’t work real well.

                1. Transsexuality & transgenderism will in the not too far future be seen as among the more bizarre follies of our time. I mean whether you get surgery or just “identify” as of a sex that you’re not, it’s like attempting to lower the river instead of raising the bridge. Why can’t you just be a boy who prefers stereotypically girl things or vice versa? Why did the sexual equality & sex freedom movement decide to accept the premises of the opposition instead of plowing on the way they did previously?

                  1. Well, maybe. Or maybe in the future, they’ll have a genetically-engineered virus that can replace your Y chromosome with an X, or vice versa…

      4. this to be the only time in history where society has decided to join the delusional in the delusions

        The prominent place religion has played in human society throughout all of recorded history says otherwise.

        1. I imagine you thought this was a clever sounding thing you typed… back to the drawing board.

        2. Libertarianism was largely founded by a religious movement.

    2. I used to make disparaging remarks about people who are transgender too. Then when I was in the second year of my master’s program a student who was transgender joined the program. She was really cool and also funny. Now I don’t make disparaging comments about people who want to live as the gender opposite their biological sex.

      1. I feel deep sympathy for the ones like you describe. It is the product of some serious mental neurosis. I wish there were some way to help them. I don’t think there is and I don’t think enabling them does any good.

        1. How did you come to this conclusion, Dr. John? Was it when you were a toddler, forming all of your opinions about the world, never again to be altered by science or experience?

          1. Goddammit Tony will you just pop the question to him already?

            1. Watching him and John go at it is like watching “good” Kirk and”evil” Kirk fighting.

              1. Who then is “good” Spock and who is “bad” Spock?

              2. “SHOOT US BOTH SPOCK!”

            2. ewww… war of the posers?(sorry John)

            3. 50 shades of wrong?

        2. I don’t think it’s clear they need help. I think it’s probably OK if they want to live their life as the gender opposite their biological sex. It might be difficult for them, however, if they really want transformative surgery but can’t afford it or something along those lines. I don’t imagine trying to work with them to live as the gender of their biological sex would be much better though. In fact, the difficulties they face are probably more related to encountering negative and unaccepting attitudes toward their lifestyle.

          1. The problem is that there is no evidence the transformative surgery makes them any happier. So they mutilate themselves, feel a brief high from it and then end up feeling exactly the way they did before and with exactly the same problems.

            I believe in personal autonomy and would never support banning such surgery. I do not see, however, how, given the results of 40+ years of doing these surgeries, any doctor could perform such surgery consistent with their ethical obligations.

            And I don’t have to live in her head, thank God. So I won’t judge her on what it takes for her to get through the day.

            1. That is an important point to be aware of. I think at this point, as with many areas of emerging research, results are mixed so the picture isn’t clear. In some studies post-op patients report high levels of happiness whereas studies indicate high levels of suicide with post-op people, and others report lower suicide rates in post-op than pre-op, etc.

              I think much of the unhappiness probably stems from social stigma at a personal and societal level. In that regard it is probably similar to homosexuality. Thirty years from now we should have a clearer picture of issues related to people who are transgender.

              1. Then the solution is to get people to stop shuning these people not to encourage them to mulitate themselves.

                1. By calling it “mutilation” you are contributing to stigma against it and expressing disapproval. Since the results are not definitive at this point, encouraging awareness of possible risks as well as possible benefits with transformative surgery would be appropriate.

                  1. Eric,

                    It is self mutilation. You can’t walk away from the truth just because it makes some people uncomfortable.

                    1. John,

                      It is indeed significant physical alteration through surgery, or transformative surgery, which carries a neutral connotation. The term mutilation carries a strong negative connotation and you are contributing to social stigma against it. If it were conclusive that these surgeries led to negative outcomes in people who are transgender, then it would be appropriate to do so. However, since at this point it is not conclusive, then using neutral terms is more appropriate while keeping in mind possible risks as well as possible benefits and waiting for more research to get a clearer picture.

                    2. Eric Bana,

                      I agree that mutilation, while technically accurate, carries the negative connotations you cite, but “physical alteration” and “transformative surgery” fail to capture the irreversible aspect of the procedure, which may account for those post-ops who do suffer severe depression in the long term.

                      Clearly transgenders cannot get an actual body of the opposite gender (M2Fs will never be able to conceive a child via natural intercourse & F2Ms will never be able to “father” children in the natural sense either). The most they can ever expect is something that allows them to more convincingly pretend that they have the body that they would prefer to have. If we really respect and care about the people who are seeking this sort of procedure then we need to be honest with them about what it can and cannot deliver.

                    3. Yes, people interested in the surgery should be aware of the possible risks, benefits, and limitations of it as with any cosmetic surgery, although surgery for transgender purposes may involve a lot more to consider than traditional cosmetic surgery.

                      I also favor terminology which accurately describes the procedure(s) and has a neutral connotation, whatever that terminology may be.

            2. John, you want to know what your problem is? It’s called “know-it-all-itis”. And that is an even bigger neurosis than transgenderitis.

              You’re welcome.

            3. I pretty much agree w you, but now that I think about it a bit more, it seems to be just an extreme example along the lines of cosmetic surgery, circumcision, piercing, & tattooing. Beauty is of course subjective.

          2. Of course people who deny reality dont need help. Wish you were a woman, man, amputee, black, white, vampire, space alien, pony, octopus, fire-truck ? These are all perfectly normal desires and no-on should dare to suggest that the mere flesh one occupies should hinder anyone from becoming a poor copy of the being one wishes to be (todays dream). All that may be lacking is the money and surgical expertise to transform oneself into napolean, a pony, or the empress Josephine and an electorate of gullible rubes would be delighted to pay for it all , if it provides sufficient amusement.

            1. Even if you can’t be a fire truck, your bathtub can: http://elitechoice.org/wp-cont…..ck_tub.jpg

        3. This. I keep reading studies – studies from sources that I thought were sympathetic to the trans folk – that say that postoperative trans people have a horribly high rate of suicide. higher than those who don’t go under the knife.

          Absent that, I would swallow my discomfort about “Gender Reassignment Surgery”. But with that in mind, I am deeply unconvinced that the medical profession is doing its job in these cases.

          Of course, my opinion of doctors in general isn’t all that high. They tend to graduate with an overblown sense of importance, and act like Priests among peasants.

          1. Really? I’m not exactly disagreeing, even the best data says the procedure/practice is worthless at best. But the studies I read are a) fuzzy and b) show a modest uptick post-op.

            1. My strong impression is that there is a short term improvement, followed by a downturn in a large proportion of cases. But it’s been some years since I did any reading on it, and my impressions may be wrong. I kind of hope I am. I know (and like) a couple of people who are shifting genders to one degree or another, and I don’t want to lose them.

              1. The studies that i’ve seen say that those who are post-op are generally happy with their decision to go under the knife, but have no statistically significant change in rates of overall negative outcomes. Depression is still high, anxiety is still high, suicide increases.

                It makes sense from a basic 10,000 foot view. These people are internally conflicted, and they think that removing the apparent source of the conflict (an apparent gender/sex misalignment) would fix their internal problems. They’re happy with the procedure because it removes that most glaring manifestation of the internal conflict. However, the root of the problem (whatever the problem may be) is still there. Therefore, they become increasingly desperate (suicidal) because they thought they fixed the problem, only to realize that they’re still depressed/anxious/dysphoric.

                1. That could be correct. Although I would say it’s also likely at least partially due to the continued presence of social stigma and disapproval after the surgery.

                  1. You can’t cure social stigma. All you can ask is that people be kind. Unfortunately, history shows us that kindness is a lot to ask.

    3. On the other hand we know a great deal about how sex is expressed biologically and genetically. Which is why reasonable people use sex and not gender. Gender being a term which applies to romance languages not mammals.

  3. Good luck, Scott….I fear that we won’t see any drawing back on calls for force to be applied to any perceived enemy of the Cause.

  4. Fine summation, Scott. Thanks. Clear, simple no hyperbole, me like.

    I won’t call it fabulous, though. I am above that kind of pandering 🙂

    1. “I won’t call it fabulous, though. I am above that kind of pandering :-)”

      *withholds prepositioned narrowed gaze*

      1. *narrows gaze anyway, just to be contrarian*

  5. “But change in the private sector is manifested by cultural and social engagement, not yet more laws.”

    I still wonder how you are going to convince women that they just have to get used to having someone with a dick in their locker rooms at the health club.

    1. Particularly since they’ll have no way of knowing if the guy is a genuine tranny or just an asshole taking advantage of the situation.

      1. You won’t be able to have public locker rooms anymore. The guy says he is a tranny. The woman he is leering at says he is just a pervert. Kick the tranny out and the tranny sues you for discrimination. Let him stay and the woman sues you for negligence and infliction of emotional distress. You won’t be able to win. The result will be gyms will just stop having public locker rooms and either have individual showers and stalls so no one can be exposed to anyone else or just not have them at all.

        1. clearly if he is interested in woman than he must be a transsexual lesbian, and entitled to free sex under disparate impact as reparations.

      2. The issue to me is this – I don’t doubt that such cases will be rare compared to genuine transgender individuals who just want to go about their business. However, while they may be rare, what could you do about it? There wouldn’t seem to be any way to prevent some lowlife from playing that game.

        Also, is it just me or is it odd that school bullying has become almost entirely about gay kids? I don’t remember anyone getting beaten up for being gay, because there just weren’t any openly gay kids at my high school back in the ’90s…..but I sure remember some kids getting harrassed and beaten up on a regular basis. Why isn’t anyone concerned about them?

        1. That is a good point. If they beat the shit out of you and torture you to the point of contemplating suicide because you are poor or dress funny or don’t fit in, you are supposed to suck it up. Apparently bullying only matters if it happens to gay kids.

          1. Exactly. It’s weird. Stopping bullying is a good thing for ALL kids, regardless of orientation.

            1. Stopping bullying is a laudable goal, but I would be leery of charging school administrators with it. Particularly Public School administrators, who strike me as a concatenation of mouth breathing imbeciles. I can’t really imagine them making things anything but worse.

              1. Stopping bullying removes one of the few reliable indicators of who will make exemplary public servants .

        2. Yeah, at my high school in the late 90s/early 00s, there was no concern for the weird kids who got beaten up and harassed, though they were often viewed with suspicion that they might show up and go Columbine on the school.

        3. You used to bully kids in school by calling them faggots, though they weren’t.

      3. How would they know if it was just some asshole cross-dressing to take advantage of the situation? That’s much more likely.

    2. It’s weird that women have done okay for all this time with lesbians allowed in their locker room. Huh. Kinda makes you think.

      1. And, from my childhood, as a boy, the local Y had private changing stalls so my mom could help my younger brother and I change when going swimming. AFAIK, most women’s locker facilities that anticipate having young mothers present have those kinds of things in them, so it just shouldn’t be an issue.

        1. The Y we go to has a men’s locker room, a women’s locker room, and a family locker room. The family locker room is just as you described it – there are closed stalls that have a small changing area and a shower. Seems like a good solution to me to have all three options.

      2. Actually it doesn’t, because males are generally much more visually stimulated sexually than women. It doesn’t surprise me at all that lesbians don’t sit and ogle straight women in the locker room.
        How many “Chipendale’s” dancer clubs are there compared to “Gentleman’s clubs”? The single biggest subscribers to Playgirl magazine? Gay men.
        Men will stare at a picture of a breast or vagina. No woman attached. Women, in general, don’t get aroused just staring at a dude’s penis or hairy balls.

        1. So lesbians in women’s locker rooms are okay, but gay men in men’s locker rooms are a problem? Is that the formula?

          1. On the assumption that the former is constructed like Bentham’s panopticon, and the latter is in an undisclosed bunker beyond the ken of man, sure.

      3. Kinda makes you think.

        OMG Nikki, you’re right! Lesbians in the Mens’ locker room and gay dudes in the Womens’ Brilliant!

        1. And Bi people can just change in the hall.

      4. lesbians allowed in their locker room. Huh. Kinda makes you think.

        Yes, go on . . . .

      5. While there are predatory lesbians, they are not the public image. Males are all too often predatory, and the present broad misandry exaggerates that tendency in peoples’ minds. Further, I expect that as this plays out we will see at least one heterosexual male creep claiming to be trans, and it will be an unholy mess.

        Which is why I favor a “bathrooms are not for socializing. Keep you mind and hands to yourself, shut the f*ck up, and do your business” attitude.

        1. That attitude is the only one I have ever encountered in a public locker room.

        2. Which is why I favor a “bathrooms are not for socializing. Keep you mind and hands to yourself, shut the f*ck up, and do your business” attitude.

          I once got a guy that I worked with fired for sexual harassment for not keeping to himself in the bathroom (and in the store in general). I was 15, and he was all touchy to me and the other teenage boys working at the store, so I waited until he did it in front of a camera and got his ass fired.

          In that case, there was nothing I could do while I was in the bathroom (except avoid going into the bathroom while he was there). The store needed more than just an unsubstantiated claim of harassment from a teenage boy. He was well within his rights to be in the bathroom, and there were obviously no cameras in there to catch him trying to rub up against the teenagers as they went about their business.

      6. “Kinda makes you think.”

        Its not a sexual desire thing – it is a “are there women who would be uncomfortable, and have a legit complaint if a person with a penis was in their locker room?” thing.

        Try running that one past corporate law at a fitness chain – your answer would get nowhere.

        1. What exactly is the legit complaint? They “feel uncomfortable”?

          1. If it is a corporate setting (as in my workplace) that would get half of HR and Legal nodding – but the “hostile work environment” would be the fancier term. Probably succeed under a variety of sexual harassment type theories.

            “You let a man in the women’s locker room!”

            “Uh, he..er, she identifies as a woman…”

            He has wedding tackle swinging down there!”

            “Um…bigot?”

  6. Nobody has presented a credible argument that gay couples have been completely unable to buy wedding cakes or rent photographers. There is no actual “harm”?just inconvenience.

    Indeed, in the cases I have heard of the gay couples (or in some cases the news media) deliberately sought out businesses that would not want to provide services to a gay wedding, so that they could stir up a shitstorm.

    1. It is not about gay couples. It is about using gay marriage as a weapon to destroy religious freedom in this country and enforce conformity. It was never about gay marriage. If gays think progs actually care about their rights and view them as anything other than disposable tools for the cause, they are in for a rude surprise.

      1. I love that they think the same people who ardently claimed their support for traditional marriage until it became convenient to flip to gay marriage can actually be trusted on anything. You know they’re pathological liars who will say anything if it suits their agenda, yet you trust them?

        The same people who go out of their way to sympathize with radical Islamists cannot also be loyal friends of the gay community. It’s like being sympathetic to brownshirt antics while claiming to be a friend of the Jewish community.

      2. And, ultimately, the Gays who allow themselves to be used this way are going to regret it. The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive establishment has tried assaulting religious belief in a large number of ways, and while they have made some headway they have also consistently underestimated the amount of resistance they would get. There are one hell of a lot more devout Christians in this country than there are Gays. Push them on religious freedom, and they re going to swamp you at the polls. Gay happy talk to the contrary, the legality of homosexuality is not the historical norm, and could change. I think that the Gays are risking being stuffed back into the closet and having the door nailed shut.

        And, since the LIRPs have no principles other than the firm belief that they should be running things, if being pro-Gay becomes a political liability, they will drop it with the alacrity of a new recruit getting rid of a live grenade.

        1. You are right CSP. Then there is also the elephant known as Islam. It has long been the Prog plan to get enough Muslim immigrants into the country to enable the Muslim community to replace the Jewish community in the Prog coalition. Thus allowing the Progs to stop worrying about supporting Israel. If and when that happens, and there is a decent chance it will, Progs will throw gay rights over the side in a heart beat. Gay will be told they have to go back in the closet and can no longer live openly because doing so is intolerant to Muslims. You watch.

          1. There’s a case for your scenario, if you think the LIRPs are that organized and have that much foresight. The great mass of them aren’t, or so I believe. It is seldom necessary to attribute to evil planning what it completely exlained by arrgance and mental flatulence.

        2. Change Liberal to Democrat and you get DIRP.

          1. True enough, but I wanted to stick to political illnesses, and not drag in criminal conspiracies.

      3. The gay rights movement will not be satisfied with toleration, accommodation, and acceptance. Instead, its objective is universal appreciation, admiration and nuturance. This is made explicit in the movement’s Riddle Scale. It will indeed seek to use state authority to punish individuals who fail to appreciate, admire, and nurture homosexual behavior. Of course it seeks to destroy religious freedom.

        The libertarian movement makes no such demand on individuals. Its concept of law is confined to the requirements that individuals keep their promises and don’t hit other people or take their stuff. Otherwise, individuals should be free to think what they want.

        1. I think it’s important to make a distinction between “The Gay Rights Movement” and Gays. Just as it is important to make a distinction between “The Women’s Rights Movement” and Women.

          The movements are driven by people who are political first, and whatever else second. Also, they live in an echo chamber, and so have very little idea how for out of the mainstream they really are.

          The Gay population that ISN’T deeply involved in the Movement needs to think carefully. Gays are a tiny minority, and one that many people have an adverse reaction to. Make too many demands, too far beyond what is simple tolerance, and you will get a nasty backlash. It may not be fair, but what has THAT got to do with anything?

    2. Hell, trolling for these kinds of “violations” is a lucrative industry, that just picked up a service line extension.

      For great liberty!

  7. That is all nice Scott and I am sure you believe it. The problem is the whirlwind has been unleashed. I would point you to Matt’s post yesterday about how the GOP needs to stop appearing intolerant or face extinction. The left won the gay marriage fight because it owns the language. It managed to constantly shift the ground making more and more views intolerant. Initially the only people who were intolerant were the people who wanted to lock gays up. Then, it was anyone who didn’t actively speak out in support of gays. Then it became anyone who objected to gay marriage or offered civil unions as an alternative. Then, it was anyone who supported gay marriage but thought that people who didn’t should have a right to do so. And all the while, Libertarians were on board with this ground shifting.

    Well, Scott, they are not going to give up this power and leave people alone. They are going to continue to use it. So now anyone who thinks that someone should have the right not to participate in gay marriages or let gay couples live in “married housing” at some school no gays actually attend.

    Scott you are now or are about to be a self loathing gay traitor bigot no better than someone who wants to see all gays hanged. We tired to tell you this was going to happen and you wouldn’t listen.

    1. Well, it’s already like that with “racism.” If somebody defends a property owner’s ability to discriminate against people who are black or Hispanic, they are going to be accused of racism. We’re already on losing ground with property rights and discrimination. Adding people who are gay to the mix doesn’t really make it much worse.

      1. “Much” is a relative term. What isn’t “much” to you is a whole lot to someone on the other end of it. And whatever you call it, it made things worse. Gay marriage was always going to mean that.

        1. “Much” referring to perceptions of libertarians who argue businesses should be able to discriminate on touchy issues like race, gender, or sexual orientation even if we don’t support the discrimination in question. You’re definitely right, it will be a big issue for a baker who doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay couple because they are gay or something along those lines.

          1. The people on the wrong side of gay marriage are people most Libertarians don’t like and don’t agree with. So ultimately, it just isn’t that big of a deal to them.

            1. There’s really nothing much we can actually do about it like with businesses being able to discriminate based on race or gender. Writing articles and internet comments is about it, and that’s not going to move the dial.

              We have experienced a similar situation before, though. I mean, businesses did discriminate against blacks, although that was government-mandated. However, I’m sure there were business owners who wholeheartedly wanted to not serve black customers or give them different qualities of service. Now, you don’t hear about businesses trying to discriminate against black customers ever. It might be similar to the current situation. Nevertheless, religious conviction can be very fervent, which is where clashes of some sort or another will happen at least for a while.

              Don’t get me wrong, John. I don’t relish in people being forced to do things against their religious convictions. My dad (like many of my relatives) is a conservative Christian like I used to be. He doesn’t have anything against people who are gay personally, and he doesn’t have a vile hatred for them like you see with some vocal nuts out there. He simply thinks it’s sinful and immoral because that’s what God says in the Bible, and that’s what everybody around him believes too. He therefore couldn’t or would have a very difficult time of doing anything to support a gay wedding. If my dad had a bakery, I would hate to have to see him in the situation of losing his bakery because of it.

              1. If it doesn’t appall you and you just shake your head and say “well that is too bad”, then be prepared for everyone to do the same when they come for your freedoms. Eric you just proved my point. Libertarians don’t care because they don’t the people being oppressed and lack the imagination to understand how once they come for those people, they will eventually come for all of us.

                1. There was a fundamental misunderstanding. I favor property owners being able to discriminate based on whatever grounds they choose. I also favor decreasing spending along with removing a lot of power from the NSA for example. It’s too bad for all those things since I can’t do anything about any of it except write insignificant internet comments.

  8. Since when is opposing private discrimination a libertarian issue?

    Freedom from hurt feelings over freedom of association?
    Sounds Cosmo to me.

    1. This whole post was Shackford saying it wasn’t a libertarian issue.

      1. Except for the part where he gets into the wishy-washy determination of extent of “harm” before government swoops in, that is.

        1. I think that bit was alluding to the libertarian rationalization for the Civil Rights Act. As I understand the argument, the total denial of even essential services, the failure of the State to protect those who were threatened/attacked for trying to desegregate, etc., etc., justified the government stepping in and enforcing it themselves.

          1. I’m not so sure.

            “In order to justify restrictions or mandates on this freedom, the government should be required to prove that a significant amount of harm is the result of inaction.”

            That was specifically in regards to freedom to engage in commerce and associate. I’m on board with the state stepping in to protect desegregation of government services. I will never be on board with the Commerce Clause being used to rope private business into essential services and public accommodation. People either have the freedom to engage in private commerce with those they choose or they don’t.

            1. Oh, I wasn’t saying I agree with that argument, but that’s the way some libertarians rationalize the CRA when accused of being pro-racist bigots who love discriminating every chance they get.

            2. I personally just tell those people to go fuck themselves

      2. READING IS FOR FAGGOTS NICOLE

      3. Dammit, Nikki. If you expect people to read things before commenting on them this entire enterprise is going to collapse in on itself.

  9. If you want to end bullying in schools, then abolish the government schools where bullying is cultivated to teach kids to be dependent on authority.

    -jcr

    1. That wouldn’t hurt but kids will always bully one another. It is human nature. If you want to end bullying in schools, close down the schools. If you want to end bullying altogether, murder all of the children.

      1. That wouldn’t hurt but kids will always bully one another. It is human nature. If you want to end bullying in schools, close down the schools. If you want to end bullying altogether, murder all of the children.

        When children are exposed to a wide range of people of differing ages and maturities, the “direness” of some snot-nosed punk with issues at home is greatly reduced.

        When children spend 8+ hours a day interacting with 25+ snot-nosed punks and one overwhelmed adult “referee,” the opinion of the punks becomes much more central to the child’s identity.

    2. I was bullied at public school. Then I went to a Catholic High School where the bullying got cranked up to 11. It was seemingly endless and was often joined in by certain teachers.

      1. I went to a hoity-toity Episcopalian high school and it was like the fucking Lord of the Flies. And, yeah, I know there were teachers who turned a blind eye, but who would come down on me like a bag of bricks whenever I defended myself.

        Suffice to say, I have never responded to the fundraising letters I periodically get from my dear old alma mater.

      2. Everyone was bullied and yet no one admits to being the bully . . . Gee, I wonder why . . . .

      3. Did you go to carmel?

  10. One troubling aspect on the adoption episode where Catholic Charities walked away from adopting out children rather than place children in a family where the parents were same-sex and gay is that it elides over the fact that in the end, the Catholic charities chose to walk away rather than deal with the state’s strictures.

    This is like saying that the pacific war between the U.S., Britain and Australia on one side and Japan on the other was the fault of the U.S. embargo while ignoring utterly Japan’s role in the escalating violence.

    All parties, including the Catholic Charities(!), felt that leaving kids to rot in the foster care system was preferable to kids being placed in homes albeit in a manner they didn’t approve of.

    The state and the gay rights movement acted as if kids rotting in the foster care system was preferable to kids being adopted only to hetero couples.

    The CC acted as if kids rotting in the foster care system was preferable to kids being adopted out to both hetero and gay couples.

    I think the kids would prefer not to rot in the foster care system….

    1. Yeah, how dare the catholic charities go Gault instead of submitting to the state’s yoke.

      Obviously they hate kids.

      1. The church submits to the state’s yoke on all sorts of issues – for example in how it selects chaplains it sponsors to the military.

        And yes, they are well within their rights to walk away, at any time, for any reason. I just think their reason is a stupid one that is unnecessarily hurtful to actual people.

      2. They could have done the adoptions without the state money or the state conditions. If you take the state’s money, you can’t throw a hissy fit when they attach strings to it.

        1. Yes they can.

    2. Speaking of adoptions, I will just leave this here.

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..-children/

      I have no idea whether growing up with two gay parents really is harmful to kids. I don’ t think the science of that is exactly settled. I do not, however, think the American College of Pediatricians is some crackpot organization making shit up. So it very well may turn out that growing up in a gay household is not good for kids.

      If that turns out to be the case, will people be willing to follow the science and admit such? And will people be willing to do the rational thing and take that into consideration when gay couples are adopting children?

      Understand, that wouldn’t mean no gay couple could ever adopt a child. Sometimes there are no good options and a gay family is better than no family. But if it did turn out to be the case, it would certainly mean gay couples should get in line behind straight ones. Ha!! Fat chance that will ever happen no matter how clear the science turns out to be.

      1. Just so I’m clear, you do realize that breitbart is rightwing propaganda? Do you even consult anything but rightwing propaganda?

        1. Breitbart is the messenger, dipshit.

          1. Attach the source is all Tony knows.

          2. One who should never be trusted to deliver anything resembling objective reality.

            1. One who should never be trusted to deliver anything resembling objective reality.

              The very definition of ad hominem.

              1. The very definition of ad hominem.

                Tony thinks fallacies are phalluses, so he gobbles them up.

            2. All they’re doing is quoting the American College of Pediatricians. That’s it.

              I suppose if your favorite leftist news outlet posted the same quote then you’d swallow it right up, because you are a brainless turd who cannot make any judgements based upon content since you lack the mental capacity to judge ideas and concepts, so you must make your judgement based upon who says it.

              1. Do you know what the American College of Pediatricians is?

                1. Do you know what the American College of Pediatricians is?

                  I don’t think they do. They really should take a few minutes to poke around on their website to see what is included and what is missing.

                  1. Tarran,

                    Can you please rise above the level of Tony? I know who they are and that is not the point. The point is that they might be right here. We don’t know. And if they are, no fucking way will society face that truth. It will bury its head in ignorance so baboons like Tony can feel good about themselves.

                    1. John you got called out and you should just shut the fuck up. It’s not like it’s the first time it’s happened.

                      You would be better served to consult real scientific and journalistic sources, but fat chance of that happening.

                    2. John, don’t get angry at me for your colossal tactical blunder!

                      You wanted to raise a hypothetical, and a very interesting one that everyone should consider, but when challenged about the link could simply have said “I don’t know if they’re out to lunch or not, but let’s say for the sake of argument that they are not” instead of getting into a poo flinging fight with Tony.

                      Instead you allowed him to entice you into a rhetorical Agincourt where he got to play the English archers and you got to play a French knight fighting on foot.

                      So all the comments in response to your original question have little to do with the substantive question.

                      Well, not all: almost all.

                      My response is an orphan sitting below. Maybe you can reply to it?

                    3. I didn’t argue with Tony. I said all he knows is attack the source.

                2. Do you know what the American College of Pediatricians is?

                  Yeah. They’re heretics who dare to apply the scientific method in defiance of CONSENSUS.

                  1. You are such a fucking moron it is painful.

          3. The American College of Pediatricians is a “Judeo-Christian” rightwing outfit that formed for the express purpose of opposing adoption by gay parents. It’s their entire fucking purpose. You learn nothing from this. This is what I’m talking about. Your brains are a soft must composed of rightwing lies.

            1. Yes Tony, attack the source. It is all you know how to do. We already knew that. So can you shut the fuck up and let the adults talk for a while?

              1. Opposing gay adoption is the entire reason for the organization’s existence! Of course the source is worth attacking.

                Stop referring to yourself as an adult. You read breitbart. I mean give me a fucking break.

                1. Stop referring to yourself as an adult. You read breitbart. I mean give me a fucking break.

                  Coming from someone who links to Skeptical Science as a reliable source, this is very funny. (Yes it’s a tu quoque, I’m not saying it invalidates your position, just that the juxtaposition amuses me).

                  1. False equivalence, of course.

              2. I despise Tony’s world view, but the American College of Pediatricians is not a significant professional society. The American Academy of Pediatricians is the more mainstream society. With that being said, as a doc, these professional societies are often not much more than political groups when it comes to their recommendations.

                1. Of course they’re political, which is how we end up with pediatricians who think that grilling children about whether their parents own guns is a good idea.

                  1. Exactly. The problem is that their purpose is to be scientific and not political.

        2. You know, when Tony says you need to get off Breibart and into the real world…

          Goddamit, Tony, stop making me agree with you! It’s freaking me out!

          1. It *is* an odd feeling, isn’t it?

        3. I beleive it will be harmful to some children, in ways they wont notice. With 2 males raising a child, or 2 females. there is no balance, no, ying to the yang, so to speak.
          WIth my children, there are roles my wife plays, and roles I play. If one of these roles were absent, or doubled, it would clearly create an issue.
          And I know single moms raise kids yada yada and there are abusive traditional families, yeah yeah right.

          Doesnt change the logic, there is no balance.
          We are so free to Be You and Me, we have all but erased ourselves.

          1. Sure we are. But children can’t act in their own interests. It seems to me that the non aggression principle would dictate that society take at least some efforts to ensure they are not harmed.

            1. By favoring orphanages over adoption by gay parents?

            2. I think it comes down to how the parents, gay or straight, raise their kids. There are plenty of straight parents that raise horrendous shitty people, and gay parents who raise very decent people, and single parents, and polygamous parents (although it seems religious nuttery often does a lot of harm in those instances), and that terrible sitcom with a kid living with his dad and his uncle. I just know too many shithead straight parents that destroy their kids, that I can’t imagine well intentioned gay parents can do much worse.

      2. Progressivism is scientific insofar as the outcomes of the scientific method support progressive conclusions. All else is pseudo-science.

        1. Scientific method? That’s so quaint. They’ve got CONSENSUS now!

          1. Consensus is the new scientific method. Just as scientists are the new policy analysts. For example, climatologists are the best possible group to make policy proposals. Everyone knows that.

            1. Sweet jesus, people: how, exactly, do you think hypotheses become laws?

              Workers replicate and confirm research. An idea that starts with a single person or lab becomes accepted by the wider scientific community; a *consensus* is formed that withstands challenges from rival ideas or schools of thought.

              There is, for example, a longstanding consensus that gravity is the reason an apple falls from a tree.

              Read “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Tom Kuhn for a historical look at how this happens.

              1. Thank you, CCC, I was beginning to think I was living in crazytown.

                And yes, everyone go read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It’s way better than Breitbart.

              2. The consensus has nothing to do with it. The only thing that matters is how the hypothesis stands up to testing.

              3. And then the consensus can’t be changed until a lot of old incorrect scientists have to die off.

            2. Sweet Jesus, consensus is not proof in and of itself which is the whole point of arguing against it as proof in and of itself. It’s the ad populum fallacy.

        2. The rise of Progressivism coincides with the pinnacle of classical physics and the idea that we had almost solved all the known problems. Progressivism was an attempt to apply the supremely successful scientific method to political structures/discourse…that and Prussian militarism.

      3. “it would certainly mean gay couples should get in line behind straight ones.”

        Speaking from experience, I can safely say that anyone who says anything remotely like this risks getting savagely attacked.

        And the attackers won’t bother with “science,” not even the watered-down “social” kind of science.

        No, they *know* that everyone who disagrees with them is a hater – they know this because they themselves hate their political opponents and assume that their opponents have a similar hatred.

        1. Yes, the world belongs to the ignorant and the hateful like Tony.

      4. John, I clicked through to the link to the America College of Pediatricians, and I get the sense that they are a college (latin for people who have been gathered together) of socially conservative pediatricians.

        Take a look at the index of position papers they have on their site.

        The American College of Pediatricians is a national organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children. The mission of the College is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being. To this end, The College produces position and policy statements on matters unique to the child and the family. It is the goal of the College that these statements be based upon the best available research, and unencumbered by political or societal opinion. This information will assist parents, policymakers, legislators, and society in advocating for that which is best for children, adolescents and their families.
        * In the Media
        * Press Releases
        * Perspectives
        * Sanctity of Life
        * Family Health
        * Sexuality and Gender Issues
        * Facts About Youth
        * Marital Rights for Same-Sex Couples
        * Health Issues
        * Life Issues
        * Parenting Issues
        * Sexuality Issues
        * Societal Issues

        So, they are hardly disinterested in the outcome of their studies.

        1. I never said they were right, only that they might be.

        2. I’ve little doubt that they’re biased, but I also consider that this very bias may mean that they’re the only ones who will be willing to raise a given uncomfortable truth if it’s something the Left and its media satraps won’t like. In other words, their motive for raising an issue might not be something I’d agree with, but the issue itself may be worth discussing.

          In other words, if I’m a dickhead for dismissing prog sources out of hand, I’m also a dickhead if I do it to rightwing sources.

          1. True,

            A biased source can be telling the truth (especially if their bias is truthful(!)) My argument was that they weren’t disinterested ie they were the sorts of people who wanted to prove that gay parents were hurtful.

            Consider their mission statement. It seems pretty disinterested. But when one peruses their position papers (and I admit I didn’t do a comprehensive job, so it’s possible I am being overly harsh), one can’t help but notice that they give much higher priority to questions related to sexual orientation, birth control and reproductive stuff than to things like athletics, nutrition, sleep.

            This suggests that what draws people to that college, and what the officers of the college think is most important to promulgate are edicts related to sexual orientation, etc.

            I suspect that they are interested people pretending to be disinterested people in order to gain the automatic trust that disinerested parties get over ones with an interest in outcomes.

            Again that doesn’t mean they are wrong, it just means that they are pretty likely to be thumbing the scale (or be completely wrong) and are hoping people won’t look too closely.

            1. It’s even less disinterested than you suspect, they split off from the AAP because the AAP supported gay adoption.

      5. With that having been said, I think the most effective form of placing kids in homes is one where people focus on the individual case: will this child thrive and be loved in this home? The best home in the wold can only take one or two children, and the vast sea of children will have to make do with second best or worse. Almost every family will be imperfect in some ways. The only question should be whether the family is good enough? Is it an improvement on the current situation for the child? And my guess is that the answer will usually be yes.

        And if ever evidence shows up that it is no, we can talk then.

        1. I think the key is to try to realistically see how kids will do in these situations. I’ve helped many gay couple adopt and delivered kids for them. They were often nice people that I’m sure will love their kids as much as a straight couple. I think they were often a better alternative to foster care or parents that could care for a child well.

          On the other hand, I think we need to be realistic that a child being raised by two gays dudes or two lesbians will have a different experience than a child raised by a mom and a dad. Will it be an experience that often leads to problems later in life? Just like more often than not, being raised without a dad will lead to higher risk of problems later in life. I don’t have the answer, but I think it’s reasoable to ask.

        2. Howard A. Stern at least had the guts to say publicly that adoption in gen’l doesn’t work out as well as making your own babies. Everybody else has to pretend otherwise to encourage adoption. Stern of course thought it was good for kids who need it to be adopted, but was just warning all that it was a sacrifice for parents & would not restore the child to the condition of children who don’t need to be adopted.

      6. The statistics are clear: there is no negative correlation with having gay, one-gender, parents.

      7. Being anti-gay adoption is the entire reason the ACP exists. They are not the American Academy of Pediatricians (the AAP). They split off from AAP specifically because the AAP supported gay adoption, so they are not exactly a disinterested party.

        “In 2002, the American Association of Pediatrics, the 60,000-member professional organization for doctors, endorsed same-sex adoption. In protest, the most conservative members split off and formed the American College of Pediatricians. The college won’t disclose how many members it has, but estimates put it around 200.”

        http://www.citypages.com/news/…..ed-6725473

    3. That situation was distressing for so many reason. There was no reason not to accommodate the Church there. it’s not like it’s the only option.

    4. Why is it troubling? Frankly, I am not troubled. I don’t expect the Catholic Church to change on my account.

    5. I’m confused. We keep getting told that if the state says that you must do “X” in order to engage in an activity, and we object, then we shouldn’t engage in the activity in the first place. Now you are telling me that it is wrong not to engage in the activity even though it means I must compromise my beliefs and do “X”? There is just no winning with some folks.

      One of my pet peeves is when people who are NOT of a particular faith try to tell those who are what they should/should-not believe, what the hierarchy of centrality of those beliefs should/should-not be, or what they should/should-not consider a sin. Respecting others’ freedom of religion means you can only agree or disagree with the outcome, you can’t judge for them whether or not they are right.

  11. Homophobia is gay.

    That is all.

  12. But just because libertarians and gay citizens were aligned in the pursuit of ending government mistreatment, that doesn’t mean other goals line up. Libertarians draw that bright, hard line between government behavior and private behavior. Others often do not, and what many gay activists see as justice and equality in the private sector, libertarians see as inappropriate government coercion.

    SHHHH! Don’t let the yokels know that we weren’t conspiring with the homos, so as to force them into the cake baking camps.

    They might get the wrong idea about libertarians. Let them go on thinking that it’s all about Mexicans, ass, pot and rainbow glitter bombs.

    1. Holy shit, that isn’t what this whole thing is about????
      Damn!!

    2. No JW, Toadies and enablers are not conspirators. Libertarians never conspired with gays. They just enabled the progs to use gay rights as a club to get rid of religious freedom. Somehow Libertarians don’t want to apply that rule about foreseeable consequences always being intended anymore.

      1. So, John, which rights do we give up because they cause too much trouble for society? I ask, since that’s your metric for liberty, now.

        I’ll wait here for your list.

        1. Yeah, I mean, like, I bet John would perpetuate *slavery* rather than run the risk of public-accomodation laws

          /what some libertarians actually said

        2. First, this was never about freedom. Gays were free to be married. Marriage is defined and determined by the people involved not the state. What gays were not getting was government sanction.

          Libertarians have always taken the position that government marriage is bad. It is bad for freedom and bad for couples. So the proper libertarian answer should have been that gays should be free to get married and every court in the land should have to enforce any contract made between gay couples but that the freedom restricting and coercive institution of government sanctioned marriage should not be extended to cover more couples.

          Unless you are talking about arresting gay couples for living openly or courts refusing to enforce contracts between gay couples, the gay marriage issue was never about freedom. Gays were free to get married. The lack of government sanction didn’t make those marriages invalid anymore than straight marriages depend on government sanction for their existence.

          1. Gays were free to be married. Marriage is defined and determined by the people involved not the state. What gays were not getting was government sanction.

            You and the other yokels persist in this line. In this country, today, “married” is a gubmint license, with all of the gubmint benefits that come with it. I’d rather that not be the case, but it is.

            Arguing otherwise is simply dishonest. You can stop trying that now.

            1. You and the other yokels persist in this line. In this country, today, “married” is a gubmint license<<br /
              Oh really? So if the government declared all marriages null and void tomorrow, you would no longer be married (assuming you are) and would be free to start dating again? You would feel relived of any bond to your wife or obligation or loyalty to her?

              What you are telling me JW is that the government dictates your reality including the terms and existence of the most personal and intimate relationship you have. If not for the government telling you, you wouldn’t even know what marriage is.

              But I am the yokal here. I am the evil statist yokal because I don’t think the government gets the ultimate say on the terms of my marriage. You in contrast are the freedom loving Libertarian because you don’t think your personal relationships really exist unless the government gives you a piece of paper saying so.

              1. When is your divorce scheduled? Fucking hypocrite liar.

                1. If my marriage’s existence doesn’t depend on the paper, it doesn’t matter so there is no reason to care one way or another, you half wit.

                  1. But you, in I suppose a fit of youthful indiscretion, got the piece of paper you so obviously sincerely believe is a mark of oppression. Get rid of it or be a lying hypocrite. Your choice.

                2. Tony is the other “woman”! I get it now, you go girl. Fight for/with your man.

              2. Like I said yesterday – on NPR there was a piece about a gay couple who were happy because now their love would be validated, because if it’s not recognized by government, then it’s not valid.

              3. But I am the yokal here. I am the evil statist yokal because I don’t think the government gets the ultimate say on the terms of my marriage. You in contrast are the freedom loving Libertarian because you don’t think your personal relationships really exist unless the government gives you a piece of paper saying so.

                JW did not say he did not believe these relationships don’t exist. He said that civil marriage is what marriage means in the contemporary US, and I don’t see how you can argue that is wrong. How do 99% of Americans feel, today, about what marriage is? If they didn’t think it was civil marriage, they wouldn’t have civil marriages, yet they do. And clearly at least 5 SCOTUS justices, along with a large share of SSM proponents, felt the same way.

                You, JW, and I may all think they’re wrong. But it’s the 99% who construct the reality we all have to live in, and that’s why this is happening.

                1. But it’s the 99% who construct the reality we all have to live in, and that’s why this is happening.

                  They can think that. And indeed they are free to demand their government recognize their marriage. Their belief however doesn’t make government sanction a right.

                  Moreover, they don’t believe that. Do you honestly think that if the government stopped recognizing marriages tomorrow 99% of the country would consider themselves divorced? I don’t think so. I think 99% of the country would wonder why the hell the government won’t recognize their marriage. That is because the existence of those marriages does not depend upon government sanction. Since it doesn’t, the inability to get government sanction doesn’t mean you don’t have a right to marry.

              4. What you are telling me JW is that the government dictates your reality including the terms and existence of the most personal and intimate relationship you have. If not for the government telling you, you wouldn’t even know what marriage is.

                Sorry, had to jump on a conference call.

                Nope. I can only deal with the reality that we have and the system of governance that we have. Equality *under the law* is the best that we can do with that.

                But, you know that.

                I’ve already said that I prefer that the current system wasn’t the case, but it is. Wishing it weren’t changes nothing in the current situation.

                1. I’ve already said that I prefer that the current system wasn’t the case, but it is. Wishing it weren’t changes nothing in the current situation.

                  So you wish that it wasn’t the case that the government told you whether you were married or not but they do so that is it. Once again, if they said tomorrow that you were not married, you would in your mind no longer be married to your wife? You would feel just fine going out and finding a new wife? Of course you wouldn’t. Your would still consider yourself married. That is because your marriage exists independent of the government sanction. If it didn’t, it would disappear if the sanction ever did.

                  JW, you seem to think that marriage consists entirely of the ability to get government mandated goodies and force other people to recognize it. Sorry but that is not what marriage is. Marriage is a civil and personal institution not a government one. The goods and the coercion flow from the marriage because the government decides it should. They are not the totality of the marriage or in any way create it.

                  1. JW, you seem to think that marriage consists entirely of the ability to get government mandated goodies and force other people to recognize it. Sorry but that is not what marriage is. Marriage is a civil and personal institution not a government one.

                    Yes? And?

                    Don’t tell me. Tell the state. They’re the ones who created this issue.

                    1. Yes? And?

                      Don’t tell me. Tell the state. They’re the ones who created this issue.

                      That means gays were free to be married regardless of whether they got a share of those goodies and power to coercion. And since they were free to be married, this is not about freedom.

                      Thanks, you just conceded the point.

                    2. That means gays were free to be married regardless of whether they got a share of those goodies and power to coercion. And since they were free to be married, this is not about freedom.

                      Didn’t we already go over about you being dishonest?

                      Seriously John, if you only want to jerk me off over this issue, just ask.

                    3. Didn’t we already go over about you being dishonest?

                      Seriously John, if you only want to jerk me off over this issue, just ask.

                      Why is that dishonest? Everything I said flowed logically. If marriage doesn’t depend on government recognition of it, then you don’t need government recognition to be married. If you don’t need government recognition to be married, then you are free to be married regardless of whether you have such.

                      How is any of that not true or dishonest? It is not and you know you. You have just lost the argument and resort to smug defensiveness instead of admitting it. How fucking dare you accuse me of dishonesty just because you can’t defend your sorry ass position.

                      That is pathetic JW. That is Tony or Joe level pathetic. Hang your head in shame.

                    4. Why is that dishonest?

                      Let’s go to the videotape:

                      You and the other yokels persist in this line. In this country, today, “married” is a gubmint license, with all of the gubmint benefits that come with it. I’d rather that not be the case, but it is.

                      Arguing otherwise is simply dishonest. You can stop trying that now.

                      Everything I said flowed logically.

                      You spelled ’emotionally’ wrong.

                      If marriage doesn’t depend on government recognition of it, then you don’t need government recognition to be married.

                      But. It. Does. In this country. Today.

                      See how that honesty thing works?

                      How is any of that not true or dishonest?

                      Look up.

                      You have just lost the argument and resort to smug defensiveness instead of admitting it.

                      joe from Lowell? Is that you?

                      How fucking dare you accuse me of dishonesty just because you can’t defend your sorry ass position.

                      I’m defending my position just fine. I’m calling you dishonest, because that’s exactly how you are approaching this. Claiming that the homos could have a separate but equal marriage, with all of the rights and benefits established by the state that flow from it, without the gubmint seal of approval is dishonest.

                      You’re playing a rhetorical shell game and are pissed for being called out on it.

                    5. But. It. Does. In this country. Today.

                      So if the government said you were not married, you would no longer think of yourself as being married? Yeah, you are the one making the honest argument here. Give me a break. Stop lying and admit that your marriage doesn’t depend on the government because if it did the government could tell you were not married and clearly it can’t.

                      Arguing otherwise is simply dishonest. You can stop trying that now.

                      No dumb ass, arguing otherwise is pointing out the truth. Marriage exists independent of the government recognition of it. If it didn’t, marriage would stop existing if the government ever stopped recognizing it.

                      You are making a completely mendacious argument here. You are claiming that since government does recognize marriage, marriage doesn’t mean anything but that now. Bullshit. You are lying out of your ass to save an irrational position and then making up for it by accusing me of dishonesty.

                      ‘m defending my position just fine.

                      No you are not. You haven’t done anything except make internally inconsistent points and lie and claim the government owns the existence of your marriage yet somehow also claim that you think marriage is more than just government goodies. You are not doing anything but embarrassing yourself and projecting.

                    6. No you are not. You haven’t done anything except make internally inconsistent points and lie and claim the government owns the existence of your marriage yet somehow also claim that you think marriage is more than just government goodies.

                      IF the state insists on involving itself in marriage, THEN it must apply those laws equally.

                      That’s it. That’s all it’s been. It’s been one of applying Constitutional law, not an ideological purity test.

                      Have some light reading.

                      You are not doing anything but embarrassing yourself and projecting.

                      HAHAHAHAHAAHA! Good bye, John. I have work to do.

                    7. IF the state insists on involving itself in marriage, THEN it must apply those laws equally.

                      If the government insists on paying for medical care, then it must applies those laws equally. Medicare for all!!!

                      That is the logic. All you are telling me is that if the government does something wrong, then it must expand it to all rather than you know stop doing it.

                      That’s it. That’s all it’s been. It’s been one of applying Constitutional law, not an ideological purity test.

            2. I’d rather that not be the case, but it is.

              It is only the case if you think the government determines reality. Fuck you if you think my marriage is only valid if I have a piece of paper from the government that says so and have the ability to force you to recognize its existence. My marriage or anyone else’ marriage has nothing to do with you or the government or anyone else beside myself and my wife. I don’t need a piece of paper to be married. I don’t care that I have one. The only reason the government is involved in my marriage is because it stuck its nose in it. That sucks and I wish it didn’t, but it does. If it decided tomorrow to get out of my marriage, my marriage would still exist even if the government continued to give its blessed sanction to other couples but not us.

              1. John, I agree with you that it’s pathetic that people somehow think their “marriage” is dependent upon government imprimatur. But let’s not be obtuse. This is about equal government treatment regarding the benefits extended by the government based upon that government imprimatur.

                Do I think these intellectually dishonest SJWs will try to use this to truncate the First Amendment? Abso-fucking-lutely. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to fight to make sure people are treated equally under the law.

                1. This is about equal government treatment regarding the benefits extended by the government based upon that government imprimatur.

                  Okay. But you would agree that government recognition is a bad thing? It is bad for a variety of reason, mostly because it restricts the freedom of contract of married couples and it grants special rights to married couples that are not available to singles. You would agree with that?

                  If you agree government recognition of marriage is a bad thing and should be eliminated, why then do you think justice demands that it be expanded to include gay couples? By that logic shouldn’t the position on other special benefits be that they should be expanded instead of eliminated?

                  For example, the gay marriage advocates on here are always pointing to how without state marriage poor gay couples will be denied visiting rights in hospitals. Well, okay, unmarried straight partners are denied that too. And still are now. Isn’t the proper solution to tell hospitals to recognize the wishes of patients and stop giving married couples special treatment? Instead the Libertarian solution to the problem is to just give special treatment to more couples. Really?

                  1. Government-recognized marriage, though, is just a convention of default rules. Given that people have a tendency to pair up, but few people other than lawyers tend to give much thought to the implications of such, the government created a set of rule that apply to things like property acquisition, childcare, who can make medical decisions when your incapacitated, and what happens to your shit when you die.

                    We can agree or disagree whether the set of rules currently in effect is optimal, but nevertheless, this is something we need, so long as people are free to alter those rules to their own personal situations (through pre-nups, wills, contracts, etc.)

                    That’s why I think all unions should be civil unions in the eyes of the state. Once you start injecting religion, morality, and all this nonsense about the “sanctity of marriage” into the discussion, it becomes a religious thing and the government has no role in that. I don’t have to believe in the sanctity of anything.

                  2. I 100% agree with you that government handing out bennies based on marital status is a bad thing. I believe – and I don’t want to speak for them but have a good feeling quite a few folks around here agree – that all that government SHOULD be doing is providing a judicial system for the enforcement of contracts that are absent of evidence of force or fraud. Until we get there though, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that we insist that government hand out those bennies to all people who choose to get married, regardless of sexual preference.

                    In terms of the the Kennedy opinion specifically, I need to take the time to give it a more detailed second read. My first quick review left me with a distinct “good result, awful way to get there” feeling.

                    1. Until we get there though, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that we insist that government hand out those bennies to all people who choose to get married, regardless of sexual preference.

                      Okay, I agree with you that the government handing out subsidized health care to old people is a bad thing. And in an ideal world medicare should go away. Until we get there though, I don’t think its a bad thing that we insist that the government hand out subsidized health care and those other beanies to all people regardless of their age. Therefore, since medicare is not going anywhere, right now medicare for all!!

                      That is the exact same logic in both cases. And you would never use it in any other context but this one. Just because it says “gays” doesn’t make invalid logic somehow logical.

              2. The only reason the government is involved in my marriage is because it stuck its nose in it.

                By George, I think he’s got it.

                Everything flows from that. And maybe, just maybe, the conservative reaction at the state level will be to eliminate gubmint marriage licensing, which I’m totally fine with.

                1. Everything flows from that. And maybe, just maybe, the conservative reaction at the state level will be to eliminate gubmint marriage licensing, which I’m totally fine with.

                  If you think the government being involved in marriage is so bad, why did you want it involved in gay marriages so badly? Do you hate gays or something JW? If you think government marriage is bad, then you should not think it is a good idea to expand it to include more couples. And if you want it expanded, and you clearly do, then stop claiming you think it is bad, because you clearly don’t think it is, assuming you don’t just hate gays.

                  1. If you think the government being involved in marriage is so bad, why did you want it involved in gay marriages so badly?

                    It’s already involved in marriage. Did you think that it wasn’t?

                    We already went over this the other day. If-Then.

                    1. It’s already involved in marriage. Did you think that it wasn’t?<<br /
                      It wasn’t in gay marriages. it didn’t recognize them. Of course I am one of those Yokels who thinks the existence of marriage doesn’t depend on the government’s blessing.

                2. And maybe, just maybe, the conservative reaction at the state level will be to eliminate gubmint marriage licensing, which I’m totally fine with.

                  … and maybe tomorrow, the tooth fairy will give you a pony! with a long flowing mane that lets you ride her whenever you want!!!

                  Most people want to control their neighbors. Getting kicked in the nads doesn’t make them think that kicking people in the nads is wrong, it only fills them with a determination to be the kicker and not the kicked.

                  1. he tooth fairy will give you a pony! with a long flowing mane that lets you ride her whenever you want!!!

                    That’s so gay.

            3. Without pretending to be a medical professional capable of diagnosis over the internet of people he’s never met, ad hominem, and intellectual dishonesty, how on earth would John argue that people have no right to think and behave in ways which make him uncomfortable?

              1. Doom,

                If you are not smart enough to answer the argument, let the adults talk. Clearly, you have no response to my points but are too mendacious to admit that fact. Thanks for self identifying.

                1. Show us on the doll where Hamster touched you, John. We’re here for you.

              2. It’s not about being uncomfortable. I would guess that John, like me, doesn’t care if gay people want to be married or not. They could do that for some time. The issue is whether the govt has to recognize that relationship with paperwork. Personally, I think the whole thing strains logic and is childish. If all a marriage license is is the govt recognizing a relationship where two people love each other, what compelling reason does the govt have in doing that? Put another way, WHY does the govt give special recognition to a relationship of two people loving each other and not other relationships of two people loving each other? It’s illogical. It begs the question of why has society recognized this one type of relationship and not others?

                1. khakis,

                  You make valid points. And your points are the reason why Libertarians have always been against government recognition of marriage. The Libertarian position was, at least until Libertarians decided gay rights was the mostest important thing in all the world, was the government recognition of marriages was bad. If that is true, then why on earth is the pro liberty position on gay marriage that government marriage should be expanded to include more couples?

                  Medicare is discriminatory against young people. Old people get government paid healthcare and the young don’t. That is unfair. Yet, the Libertarian position on medicare is that it is bad and should be eliminated not that it should be expanded to include more people in the name of fairness. Somehow, Libertarians don’t apply that logic to government marriage and think even though its bad, the right thing to do is let more couples get in on the action i the name of fairness.

                  1. Exactly. When you get a marriage license you need to prove a few things: that you are 18, with the right degree of consanguinuity, that there are two of you, and that you are a man and a woman. (also maybe that you are able to give consent). That’s it. Nothing about love or if you have sex or any of that.

                    What do those things have in common? They are ways to try to ensure that in a relationship could make a human being, that there is some “safety” in that. It discriminates against cousins, people in a loving same sex relationship of any kind, polygamists, 17 year olds….

                    So what? Why not say: “you know what, in our society, 1% of us like to have sex with the same sex and we respect them. Therefore, those people have the same right to all the govt benefits (and harms) that result in state sponsored marriage. We are calling it X, and you can get your card at the court house”

                    1. So what? Why not say: “you know what, in our society, 1% of us like to have sex with the same sex and we respect them. Therefore, those people have the same right to all the govt benefits (and harms) that result in state sponsored marriage. We are calling it X, and you can get your card at the court house”

                      There is nothing that says you can’t do that. The question is does justice demand that such that it has to happen even in states where the voters object. If government marriage is a bad thing, I fail to see how it is some kind of right such that it must occur in the name of equality.

                      More importantly, that card does more than just make things easier for them. It gives those couples the ability to force other people to recognize their marriage and it gives them special privileges that unmarried couples don’t get. So how is it right and moral to expand a system of coercion and special privileges? Shouldn’t the position be “no government gay marriage and an end to government marriage for straights as soon as we can get it”?

                    2. I can get on board with getting the govt out of marriage. But, until that happens, and it likely wouldn’t have happened, I think the civil union road is very logical and reasonable. If a straight couple wants those benefits, get married. If a gay couple wants them, get the union.

                      What bugs me is the childishness of the idea that just because marriage is a “special” relationship between a man and a woman, a gay relationship has to be called the same thing. It is by definition NOT the same thing. Doesn’t make it bad or less intense, etc. But it isn’t the same thing. Let’s call it something else and if people want to get screwed on their taxes and estates, god bless em.

                      And, I most people would accept that and it wouldn’t be a big deal. The cake bakers would make cakes for civil unions and life is good. I wouldn’t have any problem saying that we all need to recognize the civil unions. By jamming this redefinition down our throats, it just caused many to push back.

                    3. Khakis,

                      The reasonable road was to make sure gays were free to live as they liked in peace and make sure courts enforced their contracts. That is it. There was no need to do anything else. At that point gays were totally free to be married. Everything else was just special benefits and the power to coerce third parties. And those last I looked were not something Libertarians generally support.

                    4. The reasonable road was to make sure gays were free to live as they liked in peace and make sure courts enforced their contracts.

                      Plessy? Is that you?

                    5. Plessy? Is that you?

                      You accuse me of dishonest and then you do this? Since when is, you can live anyway you want and we will enforce any contract you sign, the same as segregation? That is Tony level stupid. I guess me not getting access to welfare is just Plessy. My God, I can’t share in the government goodies like other people can. That is just segregation.

                      My God JW, this is embarrassing. How can you be so committed to a position that you allow it to make you this mendacious and stupid?

                    6. You accuse me of dishonest and then you do this? Since when is, you can live anyway you want and we will enforce any contract you sign, the same as segregation?

                      You are arguing for a separate but equal marital system, which doesn’t exist in this reality, but you claim that it does.

                      Arguing for a completely separate system for a group of people is *exactly* how segregation works.

                      My God JW, this is embarrassing. How can you be so committed to a position that you allow it to make you this mendacious and stupid?

                      I agree completely; it is embarrassing. Wait, you were talking about me?

                    7. JW,

                      All you are saying is that because straight people get to coerce others into recognizing their marriages and getting special treatment, gays should get that too. That is ridiculous. And to compare the inability to coerce others to having to live under Jim Crow is insulting and stupid . There is no level you will not stoop to to defend this position. Jesus fucking Christ you are a coward.

                    8. Jesus fucking Christ you are a coward.

                      And you are deranged on this issue. You want a separate but equal system to satisfy your traditionalist ideology, no matter what the outcome.

                      Always a pleasure talking to you John.

                    9. JW,

                      If you think the inability to have access to the power of t he gun to coerce other people to recognize your marriage is “separate but equal” you are an idiot who apparently can’t understand the meaning of words.

                      Worse still, you have allowed your fear of appearing anti gay to cause you to take a completely totalitarian view of the world that sees all of life as dependent on government. You comparison of this case to Plessy is just appalling. Plessey concerned an entire system of coercion that forced everyone to segregate. To make this case analogous to Pleesy, the state laws would have had to have made it a crime for gays to claim to be married and for anyone to treat them as such. And that was not the case at all. Gays were free to be married and people and companies were free to recognize those marriages. The only thing gays didn’t have access to was the power of the gun to force everyone to recognize their marriages. That is not Plessey and you know it or would no it if you hadn’t let your fear of not looking pro gay rot your mind.

                      For the fifth time, this is not a freedom issue. This is an equal access to government coercion and goodies issue. And sorry but gays not getting the special treatment and access to government coercion straight marrieds do is a problem that is solved by stopping straight married from having such things, not giving it to gays in the name of equality.

                    10. John,
                      Exactly. And as you’ve said, and I agree, it became more about making sure everyone toed the line than about gays being able to live their lives. It was a way for the progs to shout down and blast anyone that disagreed. It will continue. Anyone that disagrees with gay marriage will be savaged and then they will move onto the next thing.

                      Also, what special benefits do you see a gay married couple having?

                    11. Also, what special benefits do you see a gay married couple having?

                      The ones Libertarians claim straight married couples have that unmarried couples don’t. The nature and extent of the benefits of government marriage is debatable. The Libertarian position has always been that they exist and that getting rid of them is one of the big reasons the government should stop recognizing marriages. My point is that if Libertarians actually believe that, and most do, then it defies credulity to see how the rational position on gay marriage should be that expanding access to the goodies to gay couples is a good idea.

                    12. “you know what, in our society, 1% (or .1% or .01%, doesn’t matter) like to have sex with multiple partners and we respect them. Therefore those people have the same right to all the govt benefits (and harms) that result in state sponsored marriage. We are calling it Y, and you can get your card at the court house”

                  2. Best argument I’ve seen for what the libertarian position should have been on gay/lesbian marriage.

                    1. Thanks. I think it’s the only way that doesn’t call the sky green. It’s not all that hard to get. It was never about the benefits of marriage to the crusaders. It was about the govt saying it’s ok to be gay. Fine, the govt said it’s ok to be gay.

              3. John is merely arguing that it’s a mistake for libertarians to buy into the notion that the government decides what marriage is, even if as Nikki says most people see it that way. I agree with John on this. Once you buy into the statist construct of an issue, the battle is lost. You’ve let them decide all of the rules and it becomes a big game of Three Card Monte, and you’re the mark.

                1. Once you buy into the statist construct of an issue, the battle is lost.

                  You don’t get to enjoy rights, denied to you by the state, until the gubmint gets out of the issue? Is that seriously your argument?

                  If the state decides to license printing presses, the only choice is to lie back and think of England?

                  1. You don’t get to enjoy rights, denied to you by the state, until the gubmint gets out of the issue? Is that seriously your argument?

                    So my ability to shove a piece of paper in your face and have the sheriff put a gun to your head and make you recognize my marriage is a “right”? That my ability to join in the coercion with the others is a right and being denied it means I have been denied my rights?

                    That is your position JW? Really? You think that rights don’t mean my ability to do something ini peace but really mean my ability to force you to do something? I really don’t think that is the position you want ot take, but you bull hotheadedness on this issue has lead you to take it.

                    1. So my ability to shove a piece of paper in your face and have the sheriff put a gun to your head and make you recognize my marriage is a “right”?

                      Does that go for non-homo marriage too? Because that’s how it works today.

                      That my ability to join in the coercion with the others is a right and being denied it means I have been denied my rights?

                      It’s immaterial to my position, but you’re totally cool with a hospital kicking you out of your wife’s room, her family making the medical decisions and the insurance company denying you her death benefits. Got it.

                      That is your position JW? Really?

                      That decision was already made John, long before homo marriage. It’s cute that you think that it wasn’t.

                      but you bull hotheadedness on this issue

                      Oh, John….[sighs]

                    2. oes that go for non-homo marriage too? Because that’s how it works today.

                      That is exactly how it works. And that is not a good thing. And your position is that the solution to that is to let gays do it too. Really? If it is bad for straights to have that power, then how is giving it to gays doing anything but making things worse?

                      It’s immaterial to my position, but you’re totally cool with a hospital kicking you out of your wife’s room, her family making the medical decisions and the insurance company denying you her death benefits.

                      If I am too lazy to take responsibility for my own affairs and have her make a medical power of attorney, sure. I am fine with personal responsibility and don’t consider it my “right” to have the government coerce other people to save me from having to do so. You apparently are because there is no principle you won’t abandon in the name of gay marriage.

                      That decision was already made John, long before homo marriage. It’s cute that you think that it wasn’t.

                      So you admit government marriage is wrong but your solution to that is to expand it to more couples creating more harm because GAYS!!

                    3. That is exactly how it works. And that is not a good thing. And your position is that the solution to that is to let gays do it too. Really?

                      Yes, John. Reality is really my position. Shocker.

                      You apparently are because there is no principle you won’t abandon in the name of gay marriage.

                      I’m just gay for it. I can’t help myself, really.

                      So you admit government marriage is wrong but your solution to that is to expand it to more couples creating more harm because GAYS!!

                      Those ingrate niggers should have learned to enjoy their ride in the back of the train.

                    4. Yes, John. Reality is really my position. Shocker.

                      And how is that position not internally inconsistent and a violation of your principles? Do you apply this thinking in other areas? Do you think the solution to social security is not to get rid of it but if we cant’ just give it to everyone?

                      I’m just gay for it. I can’t help myself, really.

                      You tell me. I would be curious to hear exactly why this issue compels you to take internally inconsistent positions and positions that violate your principles.

                      Those ingrate niggers should have learned to enjoy their ride in the back of the train.

                      How is that even a response? It is increasingly obvious you have no response to these points. It goes back to the question above, why is holding this position so important to you that you are willing to abandon all consistency and commitment to principle to hold it?

                  2. You don’t get to enjoy rights, denied to you by the state, until the gubmint gets out of the issue? Is that seriously your argument?

                    No, seriously it isn’t, and I don’t know how you get that out of it. My argument is that you don’t get to enjoy rights if you let the government tell you what rights you can and can’t have. If I agree that the state has the rightful authority to license printing presses, then when I try to protect my free speech rights I’m guaranteed to lose.

                    1. Sandwich,

                      JW has lost his mind on this issue. I can’t understand how people can get so personally attached to a position that they are willing to violate any of their principles to defend it.

                    2. No, seriously it isn’t, and I don’t know how you get that out of it. My argument is that you don’t get to enjoy rights if you let the government tell you what rights you can and can’t have. If I agree that the state has the rightful authority to license printing presses, then when I try to protect my free speech rights I’m guaranteed to lose.

                      I see your point and my analog wasn’t a good contra. Enumerated vs unenumerated rights.

                      Plessy is the best analog to this case. You have a state-created system of rights and benefits that flow to only to a set group of people, which is being denied to another. You can either go to eliminate the entire system, where you will likely not prevail, or petition for equal treatment. Do you wait and hope that the system will be dismantled?

                    3. Plessy is the best analog to this case.

                      Plessy was about a law that forced private companies to segregate and discriminate. This is about the government deciding to recognize some marriages but not others. Those two casses are not even close to being analogous. You only claim they are because you are pathetic and won’t give up and untenable position and figure your best bet is to try and obscure the issue by calling your opponents racists.

                      You can’t win so you go with Tony’ s playbook of yelling “racist”. Plessey is nothing like this.

            4. In this country, today, “married” is a gubmint license

              Everything for the State, Nothing outside the State, Nothing against the State.

              For libertarians, this is supposed to be dystopia, not utopia.

              1. For libertarians, this is supposed to be dystopia, not utopia.

                It’s already Dystopia; been that way for some time. Didn’t you get the memo?

            5. And you and other cosmos are willing to accept any increase in the leviathan in the name of equality. Extending your logic you would be fine with a flat tax of 90%. It’s equal after all. Arguing otherwise would simply be dishonest.

      2. John, the problem with all of your whining–and it has been whining–about the gay marriage thing is that, essentially, you are opting for one form of oppression (denial of equal rights for gays) over a fear of another (loss of religious liberty). That’s prog-level thinking and it’s not something libertarians should endorse. Liberty should go both ways. Anything else is injustice and tyranny of the majority/politically popular.

        1. Since when is the government not giving you a piece of paper “oppression”? What a rape of a word that is. As long as gays are free to live in peace under whatever terms they want to without the government telling them otherwise, they are not oppressed in any meaningful sense of the word.

          If this case had been like Loving v. Virginia, where being married to the wrong person, got you arrested, it would be about oppression. But it is not. It is about the ability to get a piece of paper and get special goodies. That is it. And shame on you for claiming the unequal access to government goodies makes one oppressed.

          And go fuck yourself if you think standing up for people’s rights is “whining”. Fuck you I have this bad habit of standing up for people’s rights regardless of what I think of them personally. Forgive me for offending your delicate sensibilities by thinking someone’s rights dont’ depend on how cool they are you totalitarian bastard.

          1. Equal protection, man. As long as the government is in the marriage business, it’s oppressive to provide that benefit to one segment of the population while denying it to another.

            Whether the government should get out of the marriage business at all (it should) is a separate conversation. The fact remains that it does, and so it needs to do so on an equal basis.

            1. Equal protection, man. As long as the government is in the marriage business, it’s oppressive to provide that benefit to one segment of the population while denying it to another.

              So the government not giving out special goodies to everyone is oppression. So I guess the government not giving me welfare is “oppression”.

              Whether the government should get out of the marriage business at all (it should) is a separate conversation. The fact remains that it does, and so it needs to do so on an equal basis.

              It is not a separate discussion and you know it. If it being involved is bad, then expanding its involvement to include more couples is bad too. Either admit government marriage is good or admit expanding it to gays is bad. You can’t hold both positions consistently.

              1. The thing is, though, government-recognized marriage is (or perhaps should be) just a convention of default rules. Given the reality that people have a tendency to pair up, but few people, other than lawyers tend to give much thought to the implications of doing so, we have a set of rule that apply to such pairings to cover things like property acquisition, childcare, who can make medical decisions for you when your incapacitated, what happens to your shit when you die, etc..

                We can agree or disagree whether the set of rules currently in effect is optimal. Nevertheless, there will be rules that come into play when people fail to take action, so long as people remain free to alter those rules to their own personal preferences (through pre-nups, wills, contracts, etc.).

                I think all unions should be civil unions in the eyes of the state, and the state has no business saying I can’t have that union with another man, or a group of people or whatever. Once you start injecting religion, morality, and all this nonsense about the “sanctity of marriage” into the discussion, it becomes a religious thing and the government has no role in that. I don’t have to believe in the sanctity of anything.

                1. Woodchip,

                  If you think all unions should be civil unions, then it seems to me that you should have supported civil unions for gays instead of mandated government marriage. Only gays in civil unions is not ideal but it preferable to no one having civil unions and all couples having government marriage.

                  1. That has always been my preference, but the US, with its theocratic origins, has used the term “marriage” to refer to both the civil process and the religious ceremony. Unless and until that changes, I think “marriage” should be available to gays and straights alike.

            2. This back and forth with John has been great. You are narrowly correct on the issue and he is broadly correct on the implications.

              “As long as the government is in the oppression business, it’s oppressive to visit that plague on one segment of the society while sparing another”.

              There. I fixed it for ya.

              1. sjl2112 – Yeah, that about sums it up.

            3. Here’s the problem, the govt is still denying marriage to many people. There are many people in loving relationships (sexual or not) with one or more people that can’t get married. But because gay people can do it now, it’s totally equal.

              The govt discriminates all the time. Get over it.

              1. The only people who are being denied marriage are polygamists. They are the only ones who last I looked were in danger of being arrested for living openly. Everyone else is just being denied goodies.

                1. Cousins and 17 year olds are also being denied. I’m not arguing that it matters, in fact it doesn’t. I’m a grown up and realize that the govt can give out goodies to some people and not others. As long as they are consistent with protected classes. You don’t get medicare at age 52 (unless disabled), you don’t get WIC unless you don’t have enough money, you don’t get to join the army if you have flat feet, etc.

                  It’s ok to say, marriage is a relationship between a man and woman and as a society we feel you can get these benefits if you meet the criteria (just like medicaid). BUT, if you are gay, you can get them too, it’s called a gay civil union. Come on down and sign the paperwork. You can’t get one of those if you don’t meet the following criteria….

    3. That’s right, they didn’t mean for it to turn out this way, but…

      1. I think John, Tony & JW need to get married and we should all contribute to the gofundme to get their right to a polygamist/gay/hater marriage. *butters up the popcorn

        1. It would be a gay affirming polygamist relationship. I can’t really think of anything that would say “Libertarian” more than that. And Tony and JW seem like good bottoms.. Power bottoms without being you know too power passive aggressive bottoms.

  13. This argument flips the idea of civil liberties completely on its head and attributes the source of our rights to the government

    Scott, you cannot reconcile the two camps precisely because of that argument which states the left’s position regarding the origin of our rights in no uncertain terms. Their arguments rest on the postulate that our rights are bestowed to us by government. Never mind that the argument is self contradictory since who is government but a collection of people; the left can’t even argue consistently, all the time relying on the “you can’t compare” canard when one points out their inconsistencies.

    1. Hell, I’m in the camp you say is self contradictory. Rights that come from anywhere besides gov’t have no force behind them, so are useless. Of course it all comes down to people, these things are all human inventions. But unless everyone’s a radical pacifist, what matters is that someone’s idea of right gets enforced. That’s what it means to govern, or be governed. If it were just a matter of your having an opinion about what’s right, then we wouldn’t be having discussions like this.

    2. “It is so ordered.”

      I don’t know about you guys, but when I got married the little form from the government did not count. It started when your spouse answered “yes” and then when you swore your oath.

      Just imagine that right after that government suddenly vanished…do you think your wife would be “oh, I guess we’re not really married. Go off and nail a cocktail waitress.”

  14. “In order to justify restrictions or mandates on this freedom, the government should be required to prove that a significant amount of harm is the result of inaction.”

    Ummmm…exactly what kind of “harm” is Scott referring to here? I may think they are assholes but if every fucking pizza shop owner in the country said, “nope, not catering your gay wedding and by the way, we don’t serve your kind here either,” it’s still not government action so no rights have been violated. I don’t care how significant the amount of harm is. Public accommodation laws are used to trample the property and free association rights of private parties.

    1. In order to justify restrictions or mandates on this freedom, the government should be required to prove that a significant amount of harm is the result of inaction

      Whatever happened to “the government shouldn’t step in unless somebody has suffered harm because their rights were violated”?

  15. For the most part, Scott summarized these issues pretty well, however, I don’t think it is fair to characterize libertarian thought on an issue such as transgenderism in a one size fits all theme. As evidence by reading any of the comments that are tied to topics related to transgenderism there is a rather wide spectrum of opinions.
    For example, I am not so sure that a drivers license should be what gender the person feels they are. Shit I feel like I am 6’2. My drivers license says 5’11” because THAT IS WHAT I AM. I feel like my race should say: Ursine. However, just because I am big, hairy, like long naps and can get really grumpy doesn’t make me a bear (sexuality not withstanding!). My drivers license says: caucasian.
    My chromosomal pattern is XY, I have much more testosterone than estrogen, have a penis and testicles. Guess what, my drivers license says: male. Doesn’t matter if I wear dresses and makeup. Now, if someone goes through surgery, does hormone replacement etc. perhaps after completion it would be fair to say that physically as well as psychologically they are the other sex. But we used to call that transsexual. A person who changes their sex. But until they do, reality shouldn’t be trumped by feeling.

    Don’t get me wrong, if Bruce wants to be called Caitlyn, as long as he isn’t trying to engage in fraud with a name or identity change, fine. Of course, I can still call him Bruce. If he doesn’t like it, he doesn’t have to interact with me.

    1. “His mamma call him Clay, imma call him Clay”

  16. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

  17. Ok, so having just read my “little” screed, I realize that I do NOT want the DMV (the absolute worst of the bureaucrats) make me shake my dong at them. So even though I think reality SHOULD trump feelings, I am not sure there is practically any other way to ensure it.
    Fuck it… NEVERMIND

  18. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE QUEERS ARE DOING TO THE SOIL?

  19. Oh for freak’s sake. STOP conflating the term ‘rights’ with the term ‘freedom’. This sloppy crap pervades the article. Dammit no wonder you libertarians are so freaking useless at actually increasing freedom and always find yourselves being dragged along in statist directions only to end up saying ‘whoops’.

    1. And BTW rights do emanate from government – and specifically the ‘social contract’ vision of government. We have the RIGHT to free speech in the US because the government here has explicitly constrained itself from infringing on our natural FREEDOM to speak.

  20. Libertarianism will never be anything but a straight white male club. It’s in its DNA. The entire point of libertarianism is to preserve a status quo that affords straight white males the lion’s share of the privileges. And then serve as an echo chamber in which straight white males bitch about all the privileges everyone else is getting.

    1. Tony, can you help me figure this out?

      The article says that it’s ok for employers to discriminate against gay people in some states. Isn’t this supposed to mean that gays are excluded from society? However, it seems that there’s plenty of evidence that gays aren’t excluded from society and ignored (news, TV, SCOTUS rulings, etc., widespread popular support, etc.)

      What gives? Would it be better if we could leave in a world where gays explicitly had special legal rights and protections, just so we could pretend that only a few politicians stand between gay people being excluded from society and forced to live in their own ghettos, as would clearly happen if disgruntled people had the freedom to do so? Truly, that would be the best world to live in.

      1. I have no idea what your question is.

        I feel simply that if we’re going to afford protection from discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and religion (and the religious are the most litigious of all–not that any of you notice), then we should also afford it to sexual orientation. That also means a gay vendor can’t discriminate against people for being straight.

        There’s also masturbatory libertopian fantasy in which no such protections exist and everyone gets along because they all read Ayn Rand at the appropriate age and nobody is a bigot. But I see little purpose in entertaining that nonsense.

        1. Yeah, who goes for that reality nonsense? Let’s just pretend you don’t understand the question and go with the fantasies.

          So, how did you manage to escape the gay ghettos? I’m glad you made it out. My heart goes out to you. *sniffles*

          1. I haven’t. There are members of my family, my workplace, and random people in everyday life who I can’t be myself around. While straight people can suck face or hold hands pretty much at any occasion without anyone batting an eye, my life is a constant pretense–and I have wonderful parents and open-minded colleagues. I can’t imagine the horrible bullshit that gays who aren’t so privileged must endure. (Actually my partner was disowned by his hillbilly Christian family, though I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing.)

            Even today being gay means mainstream society is structured to exclude you. Of course, as we’re all libertarians here, we know the real victims of this society are heterosexual white Christian males, who just want to scratch their balls and chaw on things in peace.

            1. You mean you can’t suck face in public without getting stared at, like practically every adult everywhere?

              CALL IN THE NATIONAL GUARD!

              You have my deepest sympathy. Boo boo.

              1. PDA is always rude, but if I had a female attached to my face I wouldn’t risk being bashed over the head for it.

                You have no idea what it’s like being gay in this society. You’re welcome to ask, but don’t pretend that you know by intuition.

                1. Yes, yes, we could only understand if we were gay. Therefore, all gay people are always right in any conversation with straight people.

                  How convenient and logic free.

                  1. Don’t current laws already protect people from getting their heads bashed in from kissing someone else?

                    Is that the idea? You find news stories to get sympathy so that you can get special protections above and beyond what normal people might get?

                  2. If the conversation is about interior decor, that’s probably a safe bet, but my point was about empathy. I realize what a fucking windmill that is to tilt at on a libertarian board, where the tacit understanding underlying all sentiments is that you know best for all humans, especially if they’re a different race, sex, or sexual orientation than you.

                    1. yes, Tony. You never assume that you know what’s generally best for straight people, much less people in general. Does your world view explicitly require a complete lack of self-reflection?

                      I’d hate to be accused of forcing a stranger to live how I think is best.

                    2. This is just hilarious. You’re stipulating that straight people shouldn’t go around thinking they know what’s best for gay people.

                      This is from a person who explicitly endorses a system where people are completely free through democracy to weigh in and dictate pretty much any facet of other people’s lives, and that’s completely valid.

                      Suddenly, it would be horrible if people could control other people who are different. As if people aren’t different in about a million different ways, on which race, gender, and sexuality only scratch the surface.

                      I guess it would be horrible to live in a society where people generally agreed to leave each other alone, then. I mean, by god, gays might have been getting married decades ago.

                      You are walking contradiction, going around telling anyone who will listen how crazy they are if they disagree.

            2. As much as I don’t want to engage you, I honestly feel that it sucks that gay people have to endure this kind of hiding in the shadows. But, that’s an issue of culture and individual human beings being intolerant and ignorant. That is not an issue of laws and the govt as long as people don’t discriminate illegally. Giving a gay couple a piece of paper and some govt benefits does not and will not change the culture. In fact, I think in some ways it will make it worse.

              1. You’re right. Marriage equality will not end bigotry. Of course there are people on this thread insisting that any further movement toward gay equality is a short road to Hitler. But can we not agree that the people who need to work on themselves are not the liberty-destroying gay activists, but the small-minded Christian assholes who command vast wealth, power, and influence in this country?

                1. Let’s not ignore the liberty-destroying statist fucks that command vast coercive power and influence in this country.

                  The ones who for the moment,have picked gay activists as their useful idiots.

                2. I don’t think someone is small minded if they don’t agree with state sponsored gay marriage. Not agreeing that the state should call a relationship between two gay guys the same as that between a man and a woman does not make one a bigot. What makes one a bigot is saying that gay guys don’t love their partner, etc.

                  I am all for gay people having a union that is the same as marriage but called something else. To me, it’s a question of intellectual rigor. There is a reason that the govt picks one and only one adult relationship this special thing. Doesn’t mean others aren’t equally important. But let’s not be children and call them the same thing.

                3. But can we not agree that the people who need to work on themselves are not the liberty-destroying gay activists, but the small-minded Christian assholes who command vast wealth, power, and influence in this country?

                  The people who need to work on themselves are the people who want to employ racist, canicidal, roid-raging baboons to force others to do their will. If it’s Christians who want to force gays to live in the closet, they need to change. If it’s gays who want to force Christians to perform their ceremonies, then they need to change.

                4. If you want me, and at least everyone I talk to about the subject, to accept you, do away with the assless chaps and dildo parades and just live your life in quiet desperation like the vast majority of others here on planet earth and quit sticking your gayness in everybodies face all the fucking time..

                  You remind me too much of the professional blacks who make a living off of being black, a la Sharpton and cannot have a conversation without, ” as a black man I….”..

                  I’m sick of hearing about it and if you guys continue I think you’re going to be responsible for the inevitable backlash.

                  1. Quit sticking your straightness in my face, cunthole. You. Do. Not. Own. This. Country.

                    1. Nor do you, nitwit.

                5. “But can we not agree that the people who need to work on themselves are not the liberty-destroying gay activists, but the small-minded Christian assholes who command vast wealth, power, and influence in this country?”

                  No? Everyone on earth has some behaviors that they really dislike, for whatever reason. Quite a few of them try to force that dislike on other people, which is a problem, but the basic act of finding something weird or unpleasant is just personal taste. No one is jumping down the the throats of jews or muslims or vegans for thinking that eating pork is unclean. Hey, they’re the ones missing out. If they don’t want to make a bacon pizza, that’s their business.

                  You just think that your personal dislikes count for more than Christian dislikes, because your personal dislikes only negatively affect other people, while Christian dislikes affect you.

                  1. Has everybody gone insane?

                    You’re libertarians. Fucking act like it. The world is a diverse place, but you weird little children blather on and on about freedom while being seemingly completely incapable of dealing with that fact.

                6. [but the small-minded Christian assholes who command vast wealth, power, and influence in this country?]

                  Eureka! Therein lies his pique.

                  1. I’m offended that he thinks I command vast amounts of wealth, etc. but just will not believe that I own the country. Get off my lawn, you grisly goblin!

    2. There is only ONE WAY to get rid of white privilege (and, since white women give birth to white men, they’re just as bad too): all of the Harvard alums must be hanged by the entrals of all the Yale alums.

  21. Not to gloat or anything, but I see that the libertarian Rip Van Winkles are waking up. They lay down to rest under the assumption that they were fighting for Freedom alongside the gay-rights movement, but now as they shake off their long sleep they find that they are now bigots, haters, enemies of gays.

    Because libertarian principles are opposed to the demands of the Movement.

  22. This is where gays forget libertarians even exist.

    1. The useful idiots are no longer useful.

  23. “”Think not of what the government can do for you, but what you can get the government to force someone else to do for you””

  24. This argument flips the idea of civil liberties completely on its head and attributes the source of our rights to the government

    I completely agree Scott. Now please explain to me why it is that the gay couples’ “right to marry” is dependent upon government sanction such that they are deprived of it if the government doesn’t provide that sanction? It seems to me that marriage is a civil and personal institution and your right to marry and the existence of your marriage is independent of any government recognition of it.

    So unless gay couples were being thrown in jail for being married, how did they not have a “right to marry” long before Justice Kennedy decided the government must grant them that right?

    1. The idea is that government has no compelling reason to deny gay people the same right straight people have. The right you have personally availed yourself of. The right you have been welcome to treat like a throwaway, to avail yourself of three or ten times if you like, at a ceremony performed by a fake Elvis. You have had a right to marry, and gay people have not. There is no possible way even an idiot like you can’t understand this argument. You’re just pretending to be obtuse, for Jesus, and nobody is fooled except maybe sarcasmic.

      1. The idea is that government has no compelling reason to deny gay people the same right straight people have.

        It’s not a right. But an interesting argument from a guy who says there is no such thing as rights.

        1. I don’t say that, and in American law it is a right.

          1. You’ve repeatedly argued in the past that there is no such things as rights. At least when it comes to rights that you find icky. Rights suddenly exist again when it comes to ones that you find less icky.

            1. Of course rights exist. I simply don’t claim they were invented by God or nature. They were invented by people. Like corporations, sports, or marriage. Things aren’t unreal just because humans invented them. You just don’t like to say humans invented rights because that means you don’t get to claim that only the rights you like are sanctified by God or nature.

              1. Your right to live wasn’t invented, it was discovered as a component of human nature. Thus it’s a natural right.

                Like corporations, sports, or marriage. Things aren’t unreal just because humans invented them.

                A corporation is a particular type of grouping of individuals. Your litmus test for existence would essentially conclude that nothing exists except atoms. Even then one might argue that atoms don’t exist, only quarks and positrons, or maybe the only things that really exist are tiny vibrating strings.

                You just don’t like to say humans invented rights because that means you don’t get to claim that only the rights you like are sanctified by God or nature.

                I don’t like to say it because it’s not true. Rights are a thing that exist solely within the context of human interaction and since the exact properties of human interaction are ultimately a product of nature, those rights exist naturally and must be discovered through study and inquiry.

                1. Your right to live wasn’t invented, it was discovered as a component of human nature.

                  Utter horseshit.

                  1. Then I am doing no wrong if I were to kill you. Got it.

                    1. Depends on the context. Are you Eddard Stark confronting a Night’s Watch deserter? Are you a state where the death penalty is legal? Are you acting in self-defense? I’d really like to know on which stone it is etched where these things are all settled for eternity.

                    2. You just rattled off some legal hypotheticals. Natural law is not perfectly incorporated into statutory law. What a shocker. One that has nothing to do with a discussion of ethics.

                    3. But natural law is bull shit. “Is” & “ought” are different things.

      2. Why does the govt have any compelling reason to recognize or sanction a relationship between two people? Why does anyone care who anyone else is fucking? Is that all marriage is and has been? If so, screw it, who cares who gets married. But then, why are we involved in these relationships in any way?

        If, however, we as a society feel that there is something special and unique about a relationship between a man and woman (like, I don’t know, the ability to create a human being by mixing up some fluids), then it makes sense to think about what are the criteria that make that relationship unique. Like, maybe having complementary organs to mix those fluids.

        Doesn’t mean that as a society we can’t give goodies to other people that we respect. Just don’t call it something it isn’t.

        1. So steal from someone you don’t like to give to someone you respect? Basically majoritarian tyranny. Is that what you mean?

          And BTW – your fluid-mixing crap doesn’t matter one whit on its own. IF – and only IF – a child is produced; then there may be some legitimate state interest in trying to ensure that a child doesn’t become a wandering ragamuffin who ends up a ward of the state. So yes a subsidy of some sort for their guardians may be reasonable. But in that case, the subsidy ONLY applies while they are a minor child – it ONLY applies if there is a minor child – and it has to apply to EVERY child no matter the marital status or sexual orientation of their guardian. Because if you are punishing a child for some status of their parents/guardians; then you are directly violating the Constitution – which prohibits any ‘bill of attainder’ or any ‘corruption of blood’.

          1. Look, I’m cool with the state not being involved with marriage at all. But, it’s idiotic to have the govt sanction a relationship because someone loves someone else. There is zero interest in that at all. There is, however, some logic behind the idea that society should somehow encourage the only relationship that has the possibility to result in a human and to try to incentivise certain types of people going into that relationship (like not being related and one of them not being a child). There is a state interest in trying to reproduce it’s population with some foundation. Now, maybe in the modern world there isn’t. If so, cool, no more marriage license. But what interest do they have in sexual relationships of any kind?

            And, how is the govt not giving a gay couple a piece of paper that says they are married, but given them a different one with the same benefits “stealing” from them?

    2. There is a natural freedom to ‘marry’ anyone you choose. Common law recognized that freedom – recognized it as sui juris – and recognized that in any cases before a court, the court would treat everyone in such a relationship (that they shorthanded as ‘marriage’) AS IF they were ‘married’. That is all however merely the state recognizing the existence of a relationship post-facto – not the state intervening/licensing/ or granting some ‘right’.

      The second states started prohibiting ‘common law marriage’, they had to create rules/statutes and all the rigamarole of ‘marriage’ and call it ‘civil marriage’. And they copied those rules from churches – including the term ‘marriage’ which was completely a church invention around 1200 or so. That establishment of religion rigamarole is what granted a ‘right’. But it was only a ‘right’ imposed on top of a restricted, now licensed freedom.

      1. What do you mean by “banned common law marriage”? No one was being arrested for living as a married couple. Do you mean they declared people married even if they didn’t have a license?

        1. Different states started explicitly prohibiting courts from recognizing ‘unlicensed’ couples as ‘married’ under common law.

          Some of the colonies did that during colonial times when they instituted penalties for interracial ‘fornication’. Many of the states did it during the progressive era when marital disputes/wills/minors started getting more complicated in court and progressives/theocrats both thought they could engineer such things better if they simply banned ‘disorderly’ (ie unlicensed – ie sui juris or common law) marriages altogether and required licenses/permissions first. Some banned them more recently. Only a handful of states still recognize them. Basically, the second a legislature wants to intrude in ‘family’, it has to ban ‘common law marriage’. Otherwise, the legislature can’t ensure compliance with the law they passed.

          If you are into genealogy and your ancestors have been in the US for a long time, look back and you’ll find out how recent ‘marriage licenses’ are.

          1. Frankly, all being recognized as married does it stick you in family court and allow your spouse to claim spousal rights. So killing common law marriage was a good thing.

            1. Killing freedom always makes things more orderly.

  25. The gays as a group don’t necessarily have a guiding philosophy or anything resembling principles beyond “give me what I want”. Gay libertarians, socialists or communists et cetera are certainly an exception, but even then the philosophy isn’t derived from their gayness. It’s not a surprise that once the libertarian philosophy is no longer useful to their crusade, they’d set about feeding the libertarians to the legislative and judicial woodchipper because we oppose the abridgment of our rights of free association.

    1. Because sexual orientation is not a political position!

      A libertarian who happens to be gay will have very different ideas as to what must be done than a gay conservative or a gay progressive or a gay commie or a gay populist.

      These different groups may band together on some issue, and the band may be dominated by one political group even, but they will appear politically incoherent because in the end the movement is an amalgation of people who have very different philosophies.

      1. Because sexual orientation is not a political position![…]These different groups may band together on some issue, and the band may be dominated by one political group even, but they will appear politically incoherent because in the end the movement is an amalgation of people who have very different philosophies.

        That’s exactly my point. The gay rights movement isn’t about individual liberty for all or even equality under the law. It’s about group rights and whether or not those group rights are exercised at the expense of others is irrelevant, if not the entire aim.

    2. I’ve known a couple gay libertarians who opposed the redefining of marriage by government. But they kept it very very quiet because they feared backlash from their friends and peers.

      1. I have a former co-worker who is gay and feels that way. He doesn’t want his partner getting a mandated part of his retirement. Marriage laws are mostly enforced contract terms. They make you less free not more.

        1. Elton John said about 10 years ago: “Marriage is what straight people do, we do something different”. I don’t get what is so wrong with this idea. What’s the saying about dog’s tails? “if you call the tail of a dog a leg, guess what, the dog still has 4 legs not 5”.

          Marriage is what it is. We can call other relationships the same thing and give the same paperwork and benefits, but it doesn’t change the definition. It just strains logic. If all marriage is is two people of any sex that love each other, how is that different or unique from many other relationships?

          But as you said, John, this was never about gay’s relationships. It was about bludgeoning those with undesireable views on the head and running them out of town.

          1. Elton is right. Gay couples were more free before gay marriage. As a legally married person, my wife gets a mandated share of my estate. I can’t write her out of my will like I can everyone else. So if for example I have a handicapped sibling and I want to leave my estate to them because my wife can take care of herself, I can’t do that unless my wife agrees.

            After I ma married to her for ten years or so, depending on the state, she gets a part of my retirement if we divorce whether I like it or not. If we ever break up we have to go to a judge and get what amounts to permission to do so. People talk about polymory, now that I am married, I can’t have a second wife without being guilty of bigamy. Gay couples, before gay marriage could have any arrangement they wanted. If the government doesn’t recognize your relationship, it can’t charge you with bigamy for having another one.

            Gays are less free now. The people on this board go insane when I point that out but they are.

            1. You’re pointing it out with total disingenuousness.

              Take me. I don’t want to get married. I think it’s stupid for reasons including the ones you list. I like being independent and am not even that into monogamy. Marriage is a conservative institution that conservative people engage in.

              Nevertheless, the question is about equal rights before the law. It doesn’t have to be about marriage. If straight people had a right to a drivers license, and gay people did not, that would be the same kind of situation. Why you are pretending this is difficult for you to comprehend is beyond me.

              1. Gee Tony, color me surprised you are happy to see gays make themselves less free in return for being able to coerce others into recognizing their relationship.

                Yes Tony you hate freedom and love coercion. We already knew that.

                1. Oh so it’s all about the alleged right of Christian bigots to be have their precious angelic little eyes free of the sight of gay people with equal rights. Talk about constitutional inventions.

                  Gay people are not less free now that they have equal rights. No gay person is forced to marry, and no straight person is forced to marry a member of the same sex. You may or may not see equality as a component of freedom, but it is still required by the constitution.

                  1. No gay person is forced to marry

                    LOL!!! Looks like you haven’t heard of meretricious relationships

              2. Tony, it just isn’t true that because one person can get something from the govt that everyone MUST have the ability to get it too. I can’t get a drivers license if I’m legally blind. I can’t get Medicaid if I have private insurance. I can’t get disability if I’m able bodied. I can’t get married to my cousin who is 16.

                It’s not about equal protection. I know you’ll hate to hear it, but marriage comes with certain criteria. You didn’t like one of the criteria. Fine. Fight for it and get it passed through your elected reps. You had a right to marry a woman just like I did. Neither one of us could marry a man. That’s equally applied to both of us.

                I would say that gay civil unions should be the approach. But, you can’t get a gay civil union to the opposite sex. In that case, you get married. S

                See? Easy.

                1. I cannot comprehend why this matters so goddamn much to you idiots. Are you all bible thumpers or what? If you believe in Jesus don’t you think He’d be pleased if you admitted to it in public?

                  Your points have all been litigated, all the way to the Supreme Court. There is simply no legitimate reason to deny equal protection in this case. And the notion that I’m equal to you because you can marry whom you want and I can only marry whom I by definition don’t want, I think was considered too ludicrous even to bring up in court.

      2. 15 years ago, most gays I know didn’t want ‘marriage’. That was something for their parents – straights – not for them.

        But some did want a relationship – and for good reason they also that relationship to be recognized when it comes to court stuff like ‘spouse exemption for hospital patient visitation restrictions’ and somesuch.

        Unfortunately the reality is that most states banned common law marriage. And pols over the decades bought a whole bunch of votes with statutory bennies re ‘marriage’ – and ALL libertarians have been silent on getting rid of those.

  26. Whatever happened to that nasty, snarling, stinky, disease-infested, playwright-wannabe Larry Kramer?

  27. As anti-homo bigotry continues to die off, will we start to see the end of a politically coherent gay movement? I would imagine so, because it never made much sense to me for sexual preference to be the basis of a tribal grouping, other than as a sort of mutual defense society.

    1. It depends. MADD was an organization held together by one primary denominator, but didn’t break up after achieving their stated goals, they shifted the posts and kept going.

      There are so many subgroups under QUILTBAG that they can keep going forever if they feel like it. I would imagine that gay marriage recognition will loose them a few people, but those that leave will be dismissed as not being really committed to the deeper cause.

    2. Sexual orientation never seemed like much of a basis to parade up and down the street, dry humping and wearing banana hammocks with whips, chains and leather, either. Yet I think gay pride parades will continue unabated, as if they are normal and reasonable.

      1. Oh my god are you stupid.

      2. Or is it that you just accidentally confessed that you hate the homos because they make your pants feel funny? I can’t decide.

        1. I know you’re not a terribly smart person, Warty. But do at least try to make an actual argument.

          1. Is that what all this pants-shitting we’ve had lately from you mouthbreathers is about? It’s all carefully reasoned intellectual argumentation, right?

            1. You’re still not making an actual argument. Try again.

              1. Yes. You are correct, you low-foreheaded buffoon. I am insulting you, you weaselfucking clown, I’m not making an argument, you unlettered dipshit. If you were capable of tying your shoes unaided, you brain-injured fuck, you would realize that the things are different things, you grunting baboon. Fuck off, moron.

                1. I support the legalization of consensual weaselfucking.

                2. Great job, Warty. You’ve established that you have a lower capacity for rational thought than Tony.

        2. We need to know what he thinks of Slutwalk. The world needs to know what he thinks of Slutwalk.

          1. Irishness never seemed like much of a basis to parade up and down the street, wearing green hats and shamrocks. Something something something I HATE MICKS

      3. When was the last time you went to a pride parade? Except possibly SF’s they’ve been family friendly for over a decade. The most scandalous thing I saw at LA’s parade this year was a float advertising Magic Mike XXL and an Episcopalian bagpipe group in *gasp* kilts!

        1. When was the last time you went to a pride parade?

          LOL

        2. I suppose the notion of not going to a gay pride parade didn’t occur to him.

          1. Christ, now *I* have to agree with Tony, too. I don’t complain about gay pride parades because I don’t go to them. So simple, even Tony can figure it out.

            Today sucks.

        3. A few years ago one went by my house if that matters. There were doms and submissives and half naked men with nipple pasties. Not exactly a winning recipe to earn respect and dignity. But hey, finding such a display to be a bit ridiculous is homophobia apparently.

          1. If it were girls with their tits out would you similarly complain?

          2. Is there some reason respect and dignity are incompatible with sexuality? Sounds like a rough way to live.

            1. Is there some reason respect and dignity are incompatible with sexuality? Sounds like a rough way to live.

              So what’s the point of a gay pride parade, Nikki? Because if it’s to somehow garner legitimacy, or fight discrimination and stereotyping, it’s working against the purported goals. To borrow Warty’s example, it would be like a St Paddy’s Day parade featuring a bunch of redheads drinking whiskey and punching people randomly. Or a black pride parade featuring a watermelon float with a minstrel show cast tossing fried chicken out to the crowd. It’s ridiculous.

              1. It’s working against their goals? So that’s why it’s still illegal to have homosexual sex and you can’t go to gay bars that aren’t run by the mafia?

                It seems to have worked pretty well to me.

                1. It’s working against their goals? So that’s why it’s still illegal to have homosexual sex and you can’t go to gay bars that aren’t run by the mafia?

                  So gays got their rights respected because they paraded up and down the street in assless chaps? I find that hypothesis lacking in evidence.

                  1. It’s entirely possible that your sense of what a gay pride parade is is entirely disconnected from the history of why they came to be, how they changed over time, and what they’re like in places where society is more repressive. It’s actually an interesting story. The meaning, purpose and content has changed over time. You seem to want to compress them down to a single point in your personal history.

              2. There oughta be a law!

                Libertarians are like the least cut out for the type of society they advocate.

                1. Libertarianism= unflinching support and enjoyment of all lifestyles and behaviors in public. Shit you’d think I was advocating that gay pride parades be shot up by a SWAT team merely because I think they’re tend towards the ridiculous.

                  1. It would seem prudent to be the most tolerant of different lifestyles if you’re going to advocate for the freest type of society.

                    1. I am tolerant. I didn’t chuck a hand grenade into the parade. I didn’t heckle anyone. All I did was form an opinion that gay pride parades can be rather ridiculous, based on the conduct on display.

                    2. Well, they’re not for you.

                    3. “Chucking a hand grenade . . . ” Oh, nicely played FS.

                      Tony, have you ever had one of those days where you are so outmanned and outgunned that your GAY PRIDE demands you march you off to more friendly territory (Salon)? Like, today maybe?

                      “We are marching off to Salon, to beautiful, beautiful, Saaaaalon . . .”

                    4. I’m never outgunned at this den of idiocy. I’m mostly on anthropology duty now. You people are fucking ridiculous. You don’t venture outside of your rightwing bubble because, deep down, you know that those of us who exist out in the nonbubble world are just plain smarter than you.

              3. Can I get some of that watermelon & fried chicken?

          3. May I ask how you feel about Mardi Gras/Carnival is?

            I’m also curious about what “a few years” means.

            1. May I ask how you feel about Mardi Gras/Carnival is?

              Sigh, I know how I feel about EDIT BUTTONS. I haven’t had coffee yet, and apologize for my lack of coherence

              drop the is or change how you feel about to your opinion of. thanks.

            2. Outside of New Orleans Mardi Gras is generally a pretty tame affair.

              1. What is your point? He saw one gay pride parade out of a window and now he knows what gay pride parades are. If we can’t have sweeping judgments about parades here then what’s the point of this subthread?

            3. May I ask how you feel about Mardi Gras/Carnival is?

              I’m not big on crowds personally. But it’s fun I’m sure. But then again Mardi Gras is what it is, and what it is, is not a declaration legitimacy and equality or whatever. If it were, then it would be pretty damn shitty at achieving the desired goal.

              About 6 years ago to answer your question. Not that it matters. I don’t see how you can simultaneously argue that “things have gotten more family friendly since the bad ole days” and “gay pride parades don’t detract any legitimacy or dignity just because they dry hump each other and wave dildos around in the street.”

              1. Jesse isn’t the one calling them “the bad ole days.” Some of us preferred it when it was fun.

                1. Jesse isn’t the one calling them “the bad ole days.” Some of us preferred it when it was fun.

                  Fine! Then call it a fun affair and don’t pretend that such behavior is on par with blacks and whites marching together for equality in Selma. Call it what it is.

                  1. It’s always been an excuse to get drunk in public and ogle boys in underwear for me. The causes are good too, and I like that we can be for good causes while not being fucking Amish about it. What’s wrong with guys in underwear in public?

                  2. You are the one who is inexplicably separating a celebration of self-expression from positive social movements. That’s not my problem.

                    1. You could have just insulted this idiot and left it at that, instead of trying to talk to him like he’s people. This is your own fault, Nikki.

                    2. You are the one who is inexplicably separating a celebration of self-expression from positive social movements. That’s not my problem.

                      I’m sorry, am I obliged by the cosmo hivemind to think gay pride parades are just pure awesomeness?

                    3. I’m sorry, am I obliged by the cosmo hivemind to think gay pride parades are just pure awesomeness?

                      No, you’re not. But you’re acting like I’m obliged to share your own opinions on the shamefulness of sexytimes and naked people. Protip: not everyone does.

                    4. No, you’re not. But you’re acting like I’m obliged to share your own opinions on the shamefulness of sexytimes and naked people. Protip: not everyone does.

                      Where did I say or imply, in any way at all, that you are obliged to share my opinion? Post it. Cite it.

                      I said gay pride parades can be rather ridiculous and that I don’t pair it with other political demonstrations in terms of the quality of the message.

                    5. You said:

                      There were doms and submissives and half naked men with nipple pasties. Not exactly a winning recipe to earn respect and dignity.

                      You did not say:

                      There were doms and submissives and half naked men with nipple pasties. Not exactly a winning recipe to earn respect from me and people like me.

                      There is not a universal winning recipe. Not all people share your opinion.

                    6. There is not a universal winning recipe. Not all people share your opinion.

                      Wow. You really had to do some mental gymnastics to make that argument. Obviously I made a statement of binding universality that I’m forcing you to believe in because I said half naked men and nipple pasties are not a winning recipe for respect and dignity.

                      Similarly, it would be wrong of me to say that it’s a bad idea to go naked to a job interview if getting a job is your goal, because there are in fact jobs in which nudity is a requirement.

                    7. You’re making all kinds of blanket statements about sex and nakedness being bad and being barriers to dignity and respect. There are no mental gymnastics involved in reading what you are writing.

              2. About 6 years ago to answer your question. Not that it matters. I don’t see how you can simultaneously argue that “things have gotten more family friendly since the bad ole days” and “gay pride parades don’t detract any legitimacy or dignity just because they dry hump each other and wave dildos around in the street.”

                You’re touching on, but missing the nuance of, an important divide amongst gays. Some have always wanted respectability and some have always wanted to be radical outsiders. Many have no interest in being paragons of either position. With the gay marriage debate and growing acceptance of homosexuality in American society the respectability camp has had growing power.

                Your entire position seems to require that there are set goals across the entire gay community rather than a bunch of disparate interests tugging in various directions.

                1. Some have always wanted respectability and some have always wanted to be radical outsiders.

                  I’m not disputing that. I never said that all gays are represented by the participants of the raunchier public displays that some of them have made historically.

                  Your entire position seems to require that there are set goals across the entire gay community rather than a bunch of disparate interests tugging in various directions.

                  Your entire position seems to require that no one have their contrary opinion about these public displays. I support equality before the law and I support that gays be allowed to freely contract with one another and I don’t have any problems with them using the word “marriage” to describe their contract either.

                  I’ve just always found most gay pride parades to be ridiculous. Granted I haven’t been to 30+ such parades so I’m sure that disqualifies me from having the opinion that assless chaps and sex toys parading down the street is not a high brow expression of dignity and equality.

                  1. Your entire position seems to require that no one have their contrary opinion about these public displays.

                    Not really. I think it’s an interesting discussion, but if you continue to dislike gay pride parades that doesn’t really bother me.

                    I’ve just always found most gay pride parades to be ridiculous. Granted I haven’t been to 30+ such parades

                    Umm as far as I can tell you haven’t been to 2+ pride parades, so I find your use of “most” odd. You’re certainly free to form your opinion of gay pride parades from the one you caught a glimpse of out your window six years ago, but it seems grumpy old-manish.

                    1. Umm as far as I can tell you haven’t been to 2+ pride parades, so I find your use of “most” odd. You’re certainly free to form your opinion of gay pride parades from the one you caught a glimpse of out your window six years ago, but it seems grumpy old-manish.

                      And nonetheless, gay pride parades have a reputation for the aforementioned behaviors for a reason. Maybe it’s bigotry, maybe it’s just the most outlandish ones get the most press. But if it’s old-manish to roll my eyes at assless chaps and dildo waving as a from of political expression, then consider me 100 fucking years old.

                      Gay or straight, or whatever, I don’t respect a person that conducts themselves that way, much less ones that claim to do it for some high moral purpose. I don’t see what’s so ghastly about that.

                    2. Gay or straight, or whatever, I don’t respect a person that conducts themselves that way, much less ones that claim to do it for some high moral purpose. I don’t see what’s so ghastly about that.

                      Well I guess that explains why you are failing to understand that I am doing nothing but giving you a hard time for being a prude.

                    3. Well I guess that explains why you are failing to understand that I am doing nothing but giving you a hard time for being a prude.

                      You aren’t giving me a hard time at all. Your arguments would have to be more substantive and less reliant on claims of your opponent’s supposed bigotry.

                    4. Did I call you a bigot? I thought I called you a prude.

                    5. I’m not sure I even implied it was ghastly. You seem content to willfully ignore the why in favor of the what, which I think is a bit lame on your part, but I don’t really expect you to bother with the history of gays in America, and without the historical context the why will fall on rocky soil anyway.

                      But now I have to get some work done, so I’ll remove myself from your lawn.

                    6. But now I have to get some work done, so I’ll remove myself from your lawn.

                      When all else fails, attack the debater. As every one of you have done in this thread repeatedly. Bravo, you’re all winners!

                    7. I’m sorry you feel attacked, I was making a play based on “But if it’s old-manish to roll my eyes at assless chaps and dildo waving as a from of political expression, then consider me 100 fucking years old.” and did not mean it to be insulting.

                      If it’s any consolation, I honestly don’t expect you to be well versed in the history of gays in America, but do think your opinions would be different if you were. It is what it is, and if that came across as overly judgy I apologize for that as well.

                      Unless of course you want to feel martyred, in which case we can pretend like I’ve been attacking you relentlessly and both go on our merry way.

                    8. @Jesse; Well I appreciate that, most of it anyways. Martyrdom isn’t really my thing. And insults on the internet don’t exactly make a dent in my personal self-esteem. But ad hominem is annoying as it is fallacious. It took no time at all for people to make sweeping judgments about me as a person and my credibility in advocating freedom because I don’t think gay pride parades, as my feeble little mind knows them, are something to necessarily be proud of. Ranging from Warty’s colorful use of diction to Nikki’s strawmen to Tony’s claims of intolerance, I didn’t get much in the way of good faith argument here, with the exception of your posts.

                      Lots of black civil rights advocates disagreed with the methods put forward by Malcom X, but that doesn’t make them fake advocates of racial equality or even bigots. I know gay men who are embarrassed that so many LGBQT festivals and parades seem to devolve into contests to see who can make the most outlandish display when what they’re really about is promoting their rights, improving their public perception and making society less “othering” towards them.

      4. Sexual orientation never seemed like much of a basis to parade up and down the street

        And they just decided to do that one day, completely out of the blue and not because they used to go to jail for acting on their orientation.

        1. Nobody forced them to go to jail. They decided to go to jail when they decided to put those delicious cocks in their immaculately-mustached mouths. They’ll get no sympathy from Free Society.

      5. Kind of like St. Patrick’s Day parade’s have continued unabated.

        But…Pride isn’t really like that anymore. It’s just a bunch of families now.

        1. I’d hardly put St Paddy’s day parades in the same category, since at last sighting, the paddies weren’t dry humping each other’s freckled genitalia as a matter of public display of their Irishness.

          1. Could you try to be more transparent? Give it a shot as a personal favor to me.

          2. No, they just get wasted and violent. That’s totes family-friendly.

            1. “What are you looking at?”: the innocent words of a drunken child. Well, I’ll tell you what we’re looking at, young man. A town gone mad. A town whose very conscious was washed away in a tide of beer and green vomit.

            2. Kind of like St. Patrick’s Day parade’s have continued unabated.

              But…Pride isn’t really like that anymore. It’s just a bunch of families now.

              No, they just get wasted and violent. That’s totes family-friendly.

              Which is it. Your use of this analogy seems rather fluid.

              1. Um…it’s at St. Patrick’s Day parades that people get drunk and violent.

                1. It’s just a bunch of families now.

                  1. I have no idea what you think you are “getting” me on.

                    1. I posted two quotes of yours back to back. If you can’t see the inconsistency then it’s willful. I’ll just leave you in your bubble.

                    2. He doesn’t realize you are referencing what happens at St Patrick’s Day parades, when you’re mentioning the crazy violent drunken shenanigans. He assumes you’re talking about what happens at Gay Pride parades.

                      He also assumes when you mention the mild-mannered, family-friendly parades, you’re discussing St Paddy’s parades. Apparently, he doesn’t go to those either.

                      Comprehension FTW.

    3. As anti-homo bigotry continues to die off, will we start to see the end of a politically coherent gay movement?

      No. It is now cleared to become a lucrative, self-reinforcing grievance industry, like feminism and the black civil rights movement.

      1. This.

    4. Virtually no one voluntarily gives up that kind of political power, whether or not it has any real basis.

      In other words, no, I expect the movement will continue.

    5. “As anti-homo bigotry continues to die off, will we start to see the end of a politically coherent gay movement?

      I think there is a problem with the premise.

      First off – i don’t think any genuine ‘anti-homo bigotry’ is dying off. Where such real-mcCoy sentiment does exist*, its probably getting more inflamed (subtle pun intended) by the increased degree to which its being shoved in the faces of people who otherwise kept their opinions to themselves.

      (*i consider the “real thing” the stuff that gets the shit kicked out of people randomly – not some guido calling someone a faggot for checking him out as he struts around half naked and oiled up)

      Secondly, i think the power that is gained by establishing a niche market in victim-politics will incentivize people to *heighten* the degree to which they accuse people of ‘anti-homo bigotry’.

      meaning, I expect it to become a super-common accusation. just as how we currently live in a society where there’s very little real racism, yet from the media you’d think we’re living in peak Jim-Crow.

      Basically, “bigotry” will be dumbed down to “lack of sufficient approval”.

      See Ron’s article on Trans-stuff and the discussion about how “tolerance /= approval”, and how you found that distinction so ‘tedious’ to contemplate.

    6. As anti-homo bigotry continues to die off, will we start to see the end of a politically coherent gay movement? I would imagine so, because it never made much sense to me for sexual preference to be the basis of a tribal grouping, other than as a sort of mutual defense society.

      Eh, probably not. They’re less than 10% of the population, and their defining characteristic is limiting their sexual choices to be only within their own group (less than 10% of the population).

      I suspect they’ll be quite tight-nit for a while. They don’t even have inter-sexual marriage going for them (well, not legally, and apparently that’s all the matters).

  28. Here’s the deal. All that wonderful stuff that libertarians claim to have done for the gays used government force on behalf of gays as a legally privileged group. Once they were defined as a group with a special call on government coercion, Homple’s Law kicked in: When a group acquires the means to push people around, members of that group will push people around.

    1. Homple’s Law

      Oh my.

      1. Why not? Who else claims it? I’ll defer to precedent.

        1. At most you could claim it as a corollary or clarification of the first Iron Law: foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

          1. The First Iron Law is more general. My phrase is only an application of it to a specific situation. So, no Homple’s Law then.

            Shucks.

            1. The Iron Laws meme has fallen into disuse here. It’s a shame.

            2. Also: I was more of a dick to you than I should have been. Sorry.

              1. No problem, I don’t come here for cuddles. Good point about the Iron Laws.

            3. Homple’s Corollary, then?

    2. Are you aware that gays are not in fact a legally privileged group (i.e., they are not a protected class federally)?

      1. Is Homple aware? Of anything?

      2. Are you aware that gays are not in fact a legally privileged group (i.e., they are not a protected class federally)?

        So if I fired someone because of their sexual orientation, no legal action would transpire? If I refused to rent an apartment to someone because they’re gay, I wouldn’t have just opened myself up to discrimination suit? What do you think it means to be in a legally privileged group?

        1. Did you RTFA? Because a big chunk of it is about how in some states it is very much legal to fire someone because he or she is gay. It is legally to discriminate based on sexual orientation in many states.

          1. Citations, please.

            1. Scroll up.

            2. Well. For starters, we could cite the very article about which we are commenting.

              The fucking fuck, I don’t even.

          2. When have the various Religious Freedom laws been used in this way? When have those state laws ever superseded federal laws and regulations regarding such discrimination?

            1. Sexual orientation is not a federally protected class, and this has nothing to do with Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. It’s just. not. illegal. to fire someone for being gay. in 18 states.

              1. In 2011, the Commission included “sex-stereotyping” of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals as a form of sex discrimination illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[4][5] In 2012, the Commission expanded protection provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to transgender status and gender identity.[4][6]

                en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_ Commission

                1. From the EEOC itself:

                  These laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as reprisal for protected activity.

                  The two examples you cite were decided as examples of sex discrimination, not discrimination based on sexual orientation. Transgender status and sexual identity are obviously not the same as sexual orientation, and the case about sex-stereotyping was specifically about sex discrimination, not sexual orientation: “The Commission has also found that claims by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals alleging sex-stereotyping state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII.”

                    1. Right. Enjoy your bubble.

              2. Sure, but isn’t the ENDA going to pass in the next congress or two?

        2. The Supreme Court just laid down the foundation for saying that gayness, like race, is a per se protected class under the Constitution.

          Its hard to square the SCOTUS decision with gayness not being a protected class, in fact. Its black-letter law that all statutes create distinctions among people, and thus discriminate. SCOTUS only steps in when the discrimination is invidious, i.e., when it is targeting a protected class.

          The skids are greased. The rest is arm-waving and technicalities.

          And our friends in the gay activist community are being loud and proud about their intentions to drive this lesson home, one jackboot at a time.

          1. This is incorrect. The case was decided on a rational basis test. I may not think the logic is great, but that is how they decided it.

            1. Was it? It’s too damn long to read, but I thought I heard somewhere Kennedy went out of his way to avoid articulating the standard of review.

              1. The conclusion was that there was no basis other than animus for having straight marriage but not SSM.

      3. I’m aware that it certainly looks that way, de facto as they say. They might as well be as far as freedom of association, employment law, public accommodations are concerned.

        1. In 18 states, you can fire someone for being gay. You’re just wrong.

          1. In 32 states you can’t, so I’m only 36% wrong.

          2. I’ll need a list of states and statues. The EEOC is a federal agency and if you can credibly claim sexual harassment or discrimination under federal law, I’d be pretty hard-pressed to believe you couldn’t make it stick even in one of your 18 states.

            1. They are not a protected class at the federal level. They are not a protected class at the federal level. They are not a protected class at the federal level.

            2. Sexuality is NOT a protected class at the federal level. There is no federal prohibition against discrimination on that basis

          3. Can you fire some for being sad?

            1. Depression is a mental illness, therefore a disability, so therefore under the ADA, No.

          4. In Right to Work states, you can fire someone for being late. Or for being ugly.

  29. Well, if you’re a gay libertarian, then welcome to the tribe, comrade. Otherwise, piss off slaver.

    Except for Tony, even if there is hope for Tony and he’s converted, he still must be banished, forever.

  30. I’m sorry but Libertarians celebrating the Court enacting same sex marriage is hypocrisy in action. One thing I liked about Libertarians is that I didn’t think they believed the ends justify the means. Historically Libertarians have advocated a strict and limited reading of the U.S. Constitution. They have advocated a limited national government and trumpeted federalism. But when it came to a policy Libertarians wanted, i.e. same sex marriage, they were more than willing to celebrate their “victory” while the Court threw their principles of federalism and a narrow reading of the Constitution under the bus. Sorry, but the ends do not justify the means. Consistent with Libertarian philosophy this issue should have been decided at the state level by state legislative bodies.

    1. “Consistent with Libertarian philosophy this issue should have been decided at the state level by state legislative bodies.”

      Paul, you will never find consistent political philosophy here.

  31. Right on cue, I was flipping past one of the Sunday morning talk shows this past weekend, and they had some gay activist on to talk about the gay marriage victory.

    His take. This is just the beginning. Now we go after (read: file lawsuits and/or complaints with the government) housing, employment, etc. etc.

    I laughed and laughed. Predicted results are foreseeable.

    Libertarians should have parted ways with the gay activists at least as far back as the decision to go through the courts. That’s what locked in the coming wave of lawsuits and prosecutions. Probably even further back than that, when the gay activists turned down legal equality by demanding the magic word “marriage” over civil unions. That was the clue that this wasn’t about non-discrimination, it was about privilege and the use of force to demand acceptance.

    1. The SSM people lost my support when they declared marriage to be a civil right. I supported them when I thought it was about legal protections for couples, but when they said it was a civil right I knew the next step was suing anyone who disagrees.

      Guess what? I was right.

      1. “Legal protections” should have been your clue to stop your support.

        It’s not activism, doofus. It is getting the government to STOP.

        1. I don’t see why same sex couples shouldn’t get screwed over the same way as married couples when they part ways. I just don’t want to have the thought police come after me if I refuse to call their union a “marriage.”

      2. “Legal protections” should have been your clue to stop your support.

        It’s not activism, doofus. It is getting the government to STOP.

      3. The SSM people lost my support when they declared marriage to be a civil right.

        They declared marriage to be a positive right. As a libertarian, I don’t recognize positive rights as something the government should enforce.

        Some libertarians seem to think that that means that the fewer positive rights we have on the books, the closer we are to libertarianism. But that’s wrong. A nation in which only Catholics have positive rights would have fewer positive rights than the nation we live in, but it wouldn’t be a more libertarian nation. Furthermore, the recipients of those positive rights would fight hard to retain them.

        Social security and religiously-defined marriage financed and enforced by reducing my personal freedoms. SSM spreads the pain around to more people while reducing it for individuals. As far as I’m concerned, that doesn’t conflict with libertarian principles and it improves things.

        1. Wrong. SSM conflicts with libertarian principles. It absolutely conflicts.

          Allow more pigs a place in the palace trough isn’t libertarian, you fool.

          1. Wrong. SSM conflicts with libertarian principles. It absolutely conflicts.

            So does OSM.

            Allow more pigs a place in the palace trough isn’t libertarian, you fool.

            Right now, the pigs in the palace are the churches, and they’d like to keep everybody else out. Preserving that status quo certainly is not libertarian. Letting in more pigs in hope that they make the palace less comfortable for the established pigs is a perfectly good libertarian strategy.

            1. Wow, aren’t you a victim of binary thinking? Two choices – preserving the status quo or increasing the # of pigs . . .

              It is not “perfectly good libertarian strategy”.

              And you know it. Or you wouldn’t be squealing so loudly, Wilbur.

              1. Wow, aren’t you a victim of binary thinking? Two choices – preserving the status quo or increasing the # of pigs .

                I didn’t talk about “the status quo”, I was talking about “that status quo”, a particular situation involving churches and civil rights. When anybody, fascists, Marxists, or theocrats, tries to use libertarian language to attack and restrict liberty, it is foolish to rush to their aid. Christian conservatives should get our help and defense as libertarians only once they actually stand up for libertarian principles themselves.

                It is not “perfectly good libertarian strategy”. And you know it. Or you wouldn’t be squealing so loudly, Wilbur.

                It’s you who is “squealing”, and not over being forced by law to accommodate homosexuals, because that’s something you have to do with or without SSM.

                What you are actually “squealing” about is that public opinion on SSM has given the finger to conservative Christians, their beliefs, and their churches, and that SCOTUS, and the administration have simply acted accordingly.

    2. His take. This is just the beginning. Now we go after (read: file lawsuits and/or complaints with the government) housing, employment, etc. etc.

      I laughed and laughed. Predicted results are foreseeable.

      Rainbow Reason Magazine like totally never saw that coming.

  32. “What do you mortally-in-danger-of-hell sodomites want on your so called “wedding” cake? It’s a sin and I advise you to call off your wedding, repent, and seek God’s forgiveness. And if I still have to bake this cake for you, I’m donating proceeds from it to a conversion therapy group.”

    I can see bakers using statements like this towards gay couples yet still providing the cakes if they’re forced to give service. It will probably keep gay couples from ever returning.

    1. It will probably lead to lawsuits, which will lead Christian bakers to form some members-only solutions to the problem of public accommodation, which will in turn lead to more lawsuits.

      It’s absurd that the simple principle of freedom of association is routinely ignored in favor of such a byzantine system of statutes and regulations re: who you must serve and the various reasons why you can’t refuse service to a particular individual within a politically protected class. It’s understandable why it happens–the power to file suit is the power to destroy, so creating protected classes permits the state extraordinary power to harm its enemies–but still absurd and immoral.

  33. “Is This Where Libertarians and the Gay Community Part Ways?”

    So, where do the gay libertarians go in this scenario?

    It’s always worth remembering that while the Left does hijack causes to advance their own slave-state agenda, that doesn’t mean those causes don’t include a lot of people who are mainly about the less-objectionable part of the cause. You don’t want them to become collateral damage, otherwise they’ll bond with the left through a sense of shared persecution and it will be that much harder to unstick them. Just identify the Left’s ulterior motives (undermining economic liberties, speech rights, religious rights, etc) and work to thwart those without getting too much in the way of the non-corrupt part of the movement. Libertarians are decent about this, but the right has a problem of falling for their human shields tactic, attacking civil rights or gay rights instead of the problematic part of the agenda, and losing face accordingly while also probably failing to stop the left from getting its way.

    1. See also: every post by John on this subject. Yes, John, the civil rights act ended up undermining economic freedom. Libertarians who supported civil rights were totally dupes for the left, and should never have done so. Segregration now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever! Preach it, brother. /s

      1. Take it up wiht Thomas Sowell. His position is that segregation was solving itself and there was no need to sacrifice economic freedom to end it. And he has a hell of a lot of evidence to back up that contention.

        Gay marriage is the same way. Gays already were free to get married. And had government recognition in more and more states. The whole issue could have been solved without destroying religious freedom.

        But hey, gays are really cool and if supporting oppression is necessary to give them what they want now rather than later, that is a price people like you are apparently willing to pay., How noble of you to sacrifice the freedom of other people so you can feel good about yourself.

        1. “His position is that segregation was solving itself and there was no need to sacrifice economic freedom to end it.”

          And your position is that any support for gay marriage would inevitably lead to Christians being persecuted thanks to existing laws, therefore gays can’t have equal rites. Not, “let’s fix the part of the law that is the actual problem, and is rooted firmly and exclusively in socialist morality”.

          And no, that wasn’t an accidental Johnesque typo above. Ok, it was, but I decided I liked it better as is.

          1. And your position is that any support for gay marriage would inevitably lead to Christians being persecuted thanks to existing laws, therefore gays can’t have equal rites. Not, “let’s fix the part of the law that is the actual problem, and is rooted firmly and exclusively in socialist morality”.

            No it is not you fucking mendacious half wit. Go show one post where I ever said any such thing. I never have and you know it.

            My position is outlined above, that gays should have been free to marry, live as they like and courts should have enforced any contract they signed. If there was a problem with gays not having access to special rights straight married couples have, the solution is to end that special treatment of straights not expand it to include gays.,

            Now go fuck yourself and argue with the voices in your head because you are not arguing with me.

    2. I think it is important to distinguish between homosexuals in general and gay rights activists in particular. This distinction leaves open the distinct possibility of independent-minded individuals who are homosexual in sexual orientation and libertarian in political philosophy. I seriously doubt the libertarian bona fides of any gay rights activist post-Lawrence since that decision was sufficient to end state oppression. As it stands, the gay rights movement is just another variety of SJW whose politics are defined by victim status.

  34. This is the end….
    This is the end my friend…

    1. Day six of the gay marriage apocalypse. I think it might by July. Dasfaggengruppen troops confiscated my calendars in a raid two nights ago. It isn’t 2015 anymore. It is Year Zero.

      Lesbian shock troops in the street as a show of force. I never want to hear Melissa Etheridge ever again.

      My wife is still safe in the attic for now. They know I am in a breeder marriage, but I convinced them that I left her months ago for a man. I had to do things to convince them. Terrible things. I guess I’m gay now too.

      1. Dasfaggengruppen troops

        This is just excellent. Seriously, it is. One question, though:

        Are we counting the sheriffs who serve complaints and enforce judgments against businesses who don’t want to participate in gay weddings as Dasfaggengruppen troops, or is this more of a dedicated unit?

        1. That you and so many other assume that support for marriage equality is also support for public accommodation laws is a particular sort of madness. I mean, I can deny it all I want, but you and John can read my mind, so only you can know the truth.

          1. Sorry, but the fact that public accommodation laws aren’t going anywhere makes it a package deal.

            Something about foreseeable consequences…

            1. And we can’t legalize drugs because the welfare state exists, right? Better the war on drugs.

              1. I don’t see how those two are incompatible. However I do oppose open borders as long as the welfare state exists.

      2. You spelled Militia Etheridge wrong.

    2. So sayeth the Lizard King.

  35. Pretty ironic that Reason is willing to veer from supporting a group which is discriminated against (gays), all because off subsequent discrimination that then came against another group…businesses.

    And yet, just a few days ago Reason took to task the ACLU for once supporting an end to discrimination against relision, and then veering from that because of subsequent discrimination that came toward gays.

    https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..-freedom-b

    Tough to keep up with what principle is at play for libertarians. They can waiver in their support because of an overriding principle, but other groups? Nope.

    1. Fuck off, joe. Your time is long past. We have annoying yokels to deal with, not annoying short divorced substitute teachers from Massachusetts.

      1. He was the captain of his high school debate team, you moron. Bow before his mighty intellect!

        1. Remember that time he threatened to punch you in the face? Good times.

          1. With his tiny little fists. Aww, so adorable.

            1. I hope you’d be enough of a gentleman to provide him a steppy stool.

              1. Does a soap box count?

                1. That seems too dignified for joe.

    2. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Pretty ironic that Reason is willing to veer from supporting a group which is discriminated against (gays), all because off subsequent discrimination that then came against another group…businesses.

      Why is it ironic, Jackass? Both groups ? gays AND businesses ? are being discriminated against by GOVERNMENT. That is what we are talking about. Government decides to discriminate against (or for) a certain group as expediency dictates.

      You and I have a right to discriminate against anyone for whatever reason strikes our fancy. Government CAN’T. It is that simple.

      Reason took to task the ACLU for once supporting an end to discrimination against reli[g]ion

      By GOVERNMENT, Jackass. Learn to READ.

    3. “Pretty ironic that Reason is willing to veer from supporting a group which is discriminated against (gays), all because off subsequent discrimination that then came against another group…businesses.”

      Libertarians support principles, not groups.

      That you haven’t grasped this fundamental concept after all this time is an indication of how deeply ingrained the religion of identity politics is in a standard political tribalist.

      1. Joe is even worse than you point out. Notice “businesses are some “group” as if they are not run by real people and are from mars or something.

        Joe is an appalling mendacious idiot.

  36. 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.
    For information check this site. ????? http://www.workweb40.com

  37. “Is This Where Libertarians and the Gay Community Part Ways?”

    Man, we’ve had this conversation so many times. Libertarian bro, the Gay stripper never loved you. She was using you. She needed you to buy her drinks and give her expensive gifts like a “fundamental right to gay marriage” (how deep did you have to mortgage your house to pay for that anyway?). Now that she’s got what she wants, she’s done with you. She’s already eyeing that big progressive dude with the fascist gleam in his eye. I heard last night the he promised to beat the crap out of anyone that looks at her wrong. I’d say it makes me feel bad to say ‘I told you so,’ but I’d be lying.

    1. My aren’t libertarians patting themselves on the back for something that had very little to no role in.

      1. We are trying to remind the world that we were allies long before the Democrats did a complete 180 on the issue. I think they are trying to get ahead of the inevitable accusations of homophobia as we shift to defending religious people being threatened for opposing gay marriage

        1. These contortions are starting to become epic.

          1. ?

            1. Epic are the contortions us Libertarians are having to undergo to accommodate the formerly oppressed as they start to acquire access to government power.

              I state epic because no group in the political world is as flexible as Libertarians and yet we still strive to maintain connections with groups that are comfortable utilizing punishment to assert their new-found validations.

              1. I am not striving to maintain connections. I hate everybody.

                1. I hated everybody a couple of days ago and I will hate everybody maybe tomorrow or Friday. Perfectly appropriate behavior for a normal Terran.

        2. You think a little thing like facts matter to the SJW crowd you’ll be accused of homophobia no matter what.

    2. We tried to warn them. But they just kept going back to the ATM machine.

  38. Being a libertarian doesn’t mean you only support issues near and dear to your personal tribe. It’s the idea of liberty that is the most important.

    And really – if someone demands government intervention – then, who’s the selfish party? Not the libertarian.

    1. In most cases when the government (Supreme Court, in this instance) giveth someone liberty, it opens the opportunity to taketh some away from others, as in freedom of association. It’s a seen vs. unseen matter. But guaranteed, you get the unseen consequences along with the envisioned benefits.

  39. Maybe my comprehension is fucked up this morning but I did not know the gay community at large and Libertarianism were ever conjoined, even at the pinky toes, Scott.

    I understand that a smattering of gays here and there likely appreciate Libertarian support of the gay lifestyle but I’ve always perceived the average gay person as a progressive mostly uninterested in the Libertarian construct which involves critiquing government- the very government which has to be utilized to battle those who reject homosexuality.

    1. the very government which has to be utilized to battle those who reject homosexuality.

      Those who “reject homosexuality” are primarily Christian conservatives. They themselves use big government to push their religiously inspired social agenda on the rest of the country.

      There is little difference between Christian conservatives and progressives when it comes to principles of government: they both engage in social engineering, they both believe we should be ruled by Top Men, and they both are trying to carve out special privileged niches for their favorite constituencies. Both progressives and Christian conservatives should be personae non gratae in libertarian circles.

      (Note little what “Christian” conservatives advocate actually has anything to do with Christianity.)

      I understand that a smattering of gaysChristian conservatives here and there likely appreciate Libertarian support of the gayChristian conservative lifestyle but I’ve always perceived the average gay personChristian conservative as a progressivesocial conservative mostly uninterested in the Libertarian construct which involves critiquing government

      FTFY

      1. Yes, SoCons are Progressives, ideologically and historically. How that affects Agile’s point about the government being used as a weapon by the “gay community” is a little above my head. All I’m hearing is “they do it too, so we shouldn’t care when it’s done to them.”

        1. How that affects Agile’s point about the government being used as a weapon by the “gay community”

          Libertarian tend to not be bothered by lifestyles- alternative or otherwise. The support of the gay lifestyle in general has primarily centered around the concept of ‘live and let live’ which, of course, is over-simplistic and difficult to utilize if your group is oppressed for quite some time.

          Government power eventually has to come into play if balance is to be created politically and socially.

          At a point the ‘live and let live’ will be set on the shelf and augmentation backed with legislation that metes out punishment for infringement will be the next step.

        2. All I’m hearing is “they do it too, so we shouldn’t care when it’s done to them.”

          Opponents of SSM don’t oppose it out of concern for individual liberty. They oppose it for two reasons: (1) it gives them political power and advantage, and (2) it advances their ideology that the state should define how people live. Neither (1) nor (2) are in the interest of libertarianism.

          We have two groups of people, progressives and social conservatives, who hate libertarianism going at each others’ throats. So we should very much care what they do to each other: we should cheer it on. At the very least, it weakens their political power. And with some luck, some in each camp will come to realize how stupid their positions are.

          If those two groups actually make up and compromise (cf the Marxist pope, or the socialist-Christian love fest in Europe), you can kiss individual liberties goodbye for good.

          1. You are a moron Win Bear. You can oppose SSM without being a socon.

            1. You are a moron Win Bear. You can oppose SSM without being a socon.

              No, you just have trouble understanding what a phrase like “opponents of SSM” means; it doesn’t mean “the only possible opposition to SSM is …”, it means “the great majority of the population of people who oppose SSM …”.

              Furthermore, as I pointed out elsewhere, people who claim to oppose SSM on grounds that it increases government power or steps on freedom association, are wrong; they are either fooling themselves or they are deliberately lying.

              Now, John, why don’t you clarify which category you are in?

      2. …Christian conservatives. They themselves use big government to push their religiously inspired social agenda on the rest of the country.

        Correct and this is just as onerous as any group (including organized gay culture) utilizing the punishing power of government to force compliance to universal social goals.

        There is little difference between Christian conservatives and progressives when it comes to principles of government

        Correct.

        Both progressives and Christian conservatives should be personae non gratae in libertarian circles.

        I should think both groups would strive furiously to avoid any semblance of cooperating with Libertarians.

        1. I should think both groups would strive furiously to avoid any semblance of cooperating with Libertarians.

          Both groups espouse libertarian principles when it serves their purposes; that’s why the left is called “liberals” and why the right keeps talking about “religious liberties” and “individual liberties”; note how everybody likes “liber-something”.

          And you see it in these debates about SSM. Christian conservatives argue that SCOTUS granting SSM is a violation of libertarian principles and infringes on their freedom of association. But that’s simply the typical cherry-picking of libertarian principles: “you respect my rights, but I shouldn’t have to respect yours”.

          What I’m pointing out is that such inconsistent use of libertarian concepts of liberty is not libertarian at all in nature, it’s just self-serving arguments for privilege and power.

  40. Yes, Scott. It is where libertarians and gay activists part ways.

    To ask a libertarian to support government force and coercion (even if the cause is noble) is asking for trouble.

  41. If you are a libertarian, you are consistent in your ideology – government force – bad, individual freedom – good.

    At least, you’re SUPPOSED to be consistent.

    1. Why do you hate gay people? I mean, that’s the only possible explanation for your comment. You must hate gay people.

      1. Well I’m told that I’m a bigot because I think gay pride parades are often ridiculous displays and counterproductive to the purported goals.

        1. I just think you’re a walking irony for being bent out of shape over a parade while advocating a freewheeling type of society. It’s like in your handle and stuff.

          1. I think the ship of giving a flying shit what you think sailed 3 years ago, Marxian.

          2. being bent out of shape over a parade

            Not celebrating is hating!

          3. Are you still copulating with bacon, pig-fucker? Or have you progressed to the entire ham sandwich?

        2. To be fair, Free, altar calls and mass worship are also ridiculous displays but well within the fluid bounds of freely-operating religion within an open society. Gays have their ridiculous and dramatic flair and they like to group festival but a free society simply gives a variety of people space to exhibit and cavort.

          Being ridiculous is very human.

          1. I will take a gay pride parade over some noxious suburban gay prog couple in their Prius complete with the rainbow flag and Obama sticker any day. Pride parades are at least entertaining and were at one time actually subversive. They stand in stark contrast to the dreary prog approved organic conformity so many gays today seem to embrace.

          2. To be even fairer Cyborg, none of that runs at all contrary to my position. I didn’t say that people shouldn’t be free to wear assless chaps and swing dildos around as a political statement.

            1. I stand corrected. Peace out.

      2. I hate everybody – sad people, gay people. But I’m no bigot. I am a hater. Just a hater. And inclusive hater.

        1. I’ll drink to that.

        2. Some days are made for hating, others for loving, and the remainder for not giving a single fuck either way. Such is the state of humanness.

  42. Could you please stop collectivizing people as the “gay community”? Sleeping with members of the same sex doesn’t make you part of a “community” or “movement”.

    What you seem to call the “gay community” is progressives who happen to have made homosexuality their favorite victim group.

    1. Re: Mark22,

      Could you please stop collectivizing people as the “gay community”? Sleeping with members of the same sex doesn’t make you part of a “community” or “movement”.

      Point well taken but, remember, it is far easier to think in terms of SETS than it is in terms of individuals since it makes the conveying of ideas and language much easier.

      The problem when arguing with the Marxians from the planet Marx is that they treat the SETS as real things. There is where we must draw the distinction so discussions don’t end up being equivocation contests. You can see for yourself with our resident Equivocator and Marxian: Tony.

      1. If you talk about “libertarians vs. gay community”, you pretty much have already conceded that there is no significant gay presence among libertarians, and that progressives are the rightful spokespeople for gay interests. That is, without even any argument, you have already conceded the leftist point of view simply by accepting their terminology and their way of framing the debate. That is precisely why libertarians need to be clear about these points from the start and reject linguistic collectivization like that.

  43. Re: Tony the Marxian,

    Libertarianism will never be anything but a straight white male club. It’s in its DNA.

    Sounds familiar…

    The entire point of libertarianism is to preserve a status quo that affords straight white males the lion’s share of the privileges.

    Indeed, that is what freedom means ? privileges. Or something.

    The Marxians continue to show they have a personal problem with logic.

    1. Indeed, that is what freedom means ? privileges. Or something.

      However, if you use libertarianism to argue against extending privileges to new groups, while doing nothing effective about removing privileges from old groups, you are using libertarianism to “preserve a status quo”.

      Furthermore, there is nothing automatically less libertarian about extending government handouts and privileges to new groups. For example, if everybody could marry their dog or car, the privileges conferred to people based on marriage would cease to matter, and the outcome would be almost as good as having no government involvement in marriage at all. If everybody could easily declare themselves a church, then a lot of the restrictions on freedom of association (and much of the tax code) would evaporate.

  44. Here’s how I put it. I feel indignant at the indignities blacks had to bear leading up to the Civil Rights Act, but don’t support the Act. So too I think gays are like everybody else, but don’t support Statist “Title IX’esque” solutions. Where I twain from a cause of acceptance of those who are different is when they desire to use the Force of the State to inevitably continue their cause. When a cause gets access to the blase fist-mailing of the Federal level, I’m out. It’s typically not the what, but the how. Spooner was an abolitionist, but he could not support the (then) infant Leviathan as some sort of solution. We have 150 years of Statist “solutions” to problems that never go away. This ruling may make the “gay marriage” problem go away, but also now emboldens Big Gay to push around whoever they want.

    ….meet the new boss, same as the old boss…..

    1. Re: toolkien,

      I feel indignant at the indignities blacks had to bear leading up to the Civil Rights Act, but don’t support the Act.

      The CRA of 1964 was nothing more than Johnson’s way to upstage the civil rights movement and rob it of its righteous teeth. Just like Bismarck upstaged the German Socialists by inventing Social Security, so too did Johnson (and thus the State) rob MLK and the civil rights movement of their hard-earned efforts by imposing a piece of legislation that assured racial resentment not seen since the Reconstruction Era.

      1. If they had stopped with Title I it would have been fine.

        1. Agreed, but that would only achieve what was inevitable anyway. No, the Johnson administration needed to up the ante to grab the black vote for the Democrats, and that included the private anti-discrimination clauses which were premised on the bogus “public accommodation” concept.

    2. And if they can force an institution (Bob Jones university) to lose tax exemption because it “discriminates”, government can force it’s “morals” on any religion.

      And then, all religions become state religions . . .

      1. You know who else made all religions state religions?

        1. The Romans? And the Catholics? And the Roman Catholics?

        2. Modern day Germany? Although, it’s not all religions, just a subset.

        3. Henry VIII?

        4. Brigham Young? I win, don’t I? Brigham Young is the correct answer, isn’t it?

      2. And if they can force an institution (Bob Jones university) to lose tax exemption because it “discriminates”, government can force it’s “morals” on any religion.

        What allows government to influence churches is the fact that churches are granted tax exempt status in the first place. As long as government does that, it remains in the business of determining which religions are proper and which ones aren’t.

        The solution to that is to end tax exempt status for all churches. There is no logical reason for it to exist in the first place; what connection is there between donors being able to deduct donations from their income tax and freedom of religion?

        Tax exempt status granted by the IRS is establishment of religion. Hopefully, we will get rid of it, the sooner the better. (Alternatively, we can water it down so much much that everybody can get it for any purpose, though that seems less likely to succeed in practice.)

        1. Except . . .well, no. Unless you’re a proponent of double taxation. And don’t you dare try the “well, you donors take it off of your taxes” routine with me. Unless you don’t know the difference between a deduction and a credit and how they impact your cash flow.

          1. Except . . .well, no. Unless you’re a proponent of double taxation.

            Many things are double taxed. Double taxing donations to religious organizations, or a religious business like Bob Jones, is no different than double taxing anything else.

            What violates the establishment clause is that the IRS determines that some religious businesses and churches are legitimate and socially beneficial while others are not; that should end.

            And don’t you dare try the “well, you donors take it off of your taxes” routine with me. Unless you don’t know the difference between a deduction and a credit and how they impact your cash flow.

            I know the difference between a credit and a deduction, and I used the term correctly. And why would it make any difference how it impacts anybody’s cash flow? Donating to Bob Jones University should be no different from buying an iPhone or paying a Nevada hooker for a blowjob: it’s stuff you do for your private enjoyment with your private money.

        2. Churches could about as easily organize, for most of the things most churches raise $ for (educational & charitable purposes), as secular not-for-profits & get the same tax “benefits”. The only extra churches get is having certain activity designated as “religious” & hence on a par w educational & eleemosynary activity, like the swingers club that reorganized as a church?& most churches don’t try to take that kind of advantage.

          1. If they reorganized as secular non-profits, they couldn’t discriminate based on religion and their money couldn’t flow in nebulous ways to and from the church they are associated with.

            Religious “charities” in reality are little more than recruitment and public relations organizations for the church. Well, sometimes they are also highly profitable businesses for the churches involved, plus lucrative employment opportunities for church members and staff.

            Ask yourself how many of those religious “charities” would continue to operate if they couldn’t mention their church affiliation and just had to work quietly for the public good.

            1. You really hate churches, don’t you?

              I grew up Catholic (left the church 45 years ago), but can’t hate on the charity work or decent schools that Catholic schools provided in a lot of inner cities before the recent advances in charters.

              Bullshit about reorganizing as “secular” charities.

              You are not a libertarian if you want more government oversight of any entity. You hate religious people despite their motivations because you have a bone to pick with churches.

              Seems rational/LMFAO.

        3. Um, because lots of non profits (not all churches) get tax breaks. Why aren’t you railing against tax deductions for donations to the Sierra Club? It’s arguable that that bunch is a quasi religion.

          You seem to have a war boner about religious people. I’m not a religious type but you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with these folks.

          How about the state universities that have adopted “climate change” as a religion. AFAIK their revenue isn’t taxed. So explain the difference…inquiring minds want to know?

  45. Scott, I can invision individuals of any sexual persuasion, any race, any gender and in any number freely and uncoercively “marrying” one another (or multiple others) – without SCOTRUM jumping the shark and making it so.

  46. I was wondering where everyone was this morning.

    Well, I’m all gayed out so I think I’ll sit this one out.

  47. Some gay activists are warning that no, there is still work to be done. There are other issues of concern that affect the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. Top gay activist Michelangelo Signorile

    Professional activism is a job and an industry, like anything else. It must grow, expand and justify its existence.

    1. The war is never over because the soldiers would be out of a job . . . “Must stir up shit to get a paycheck . . .”

    2. Professional activism is a job and an industry, like anything else. It must grow, expand and justify its existence.

      You just defined the very existence of the American Law Institute.

    3. It’s like evangelism.

      1. I was going to guess Jesse Jackson.

  48. I’m interested in hearing a big-L Libertarian (or even a small-l libertarian) explain the pragmatic results of this, apparently, 40-year ‘libertarian moment’ between libertarian and gay activists. That’s two freaking generations.

    Are gay activists more libertarian now on other issues than they were then? I don’t see it one whit and it looks to me like it is absolutely nothing more than Democratic identity/victim politics and/or proto-Marxist queer theory stuff.

    Because if the only libertarian ‘success’ is SSM, then it is really hard for me to see that this 40-year ‘libertarian moment’ is anything other than a colossal failure/misdirection. It is libertarians who got coopted – not gays who became more libertarian.

    1. The other thing to remember is that Libertarians started advocating for gay marriage before Lawrence v. Texas when it was still illegal in most places to live openly as a gay couple. At that time, advocating for gay marriage was really just a radical way of advocating for allowing gays to live in peace. I honestly don’t think Libertarians gave the implications of giving marriage licenses to gays much thought, especially since Libertarians wanted to get rid of marriage licenses anyway.

      I don’t think Libertarians ever fully thought through the implications of Lawrence. Really Lawrence eliminated the reason to advocate for gay marriage. Libertarians didn’t think that through and just kept advocating for gay marriage as if nothing had changed.

      1. Yeah, in hindsight Libertarians didn’t think about anything very much. If the end goal is to ‘get rid of marriage licenses’ (and more broadly ALL of the intrusions into family/personal enabled by civil marriage), then the ONLY non-anarchic means to get there is to reverse the statutory prohibition against common-law marriage (most states had already prohibited that by 1970 or so – mostly during progressive era and the 1950’s) – and then use the regained availability of common-law marriage to compete with and whittle away at the statist/establishment/subsidy elements of ‘civil marriage’. Civil marriage will always require licenses because civil law is based on the presumption that you are not free to do something until you are given permission to do so. Common law is based on the presumption that you are free to do something unless prohibited from doing it.

        Even the issue of legalizing cohabitation is one necessary step in that process of restoring common-law marriage – so Libertarians only went off the rails after Lawrence v Texas.

        1. Gays couples could have been the control group that showed the rest of the world the advantages of living outside of the government marriage system. Instead, they have become a hammer to go after religious freedom.

      2. Really Lawrence eliminated the reason to advocate for gay marriage.

        Except for all the government handouts and privileges that are attached to marriage; what justification is there for only straight couples to receive those?

        1. YEs. The answer to that is to advocate against straights getting those, not give them to gays. You compare it to only giving Catholics something. That is not a good comparison. Government marriage is a bad thing not a good thing. So advocating its expansion in the name of fairness is absurd. Libertarians only did it because they let their desire to fit in with Progs override their better judgement.

          Think of it this way, if we allowed Catholics to compel people to take mass, would the answer to that be to let Jews and Protestants do it to or to argue Catholics shouldn’t be able to do it at all? Same thing here.

          1. The answer to that is to advocate against straights getting those, not give them to gays. … Government marriage is a bad thing not a good thing.

            I agree. And as a libertarian, I argue for abolishing government marriage. But as long as we have government marriage, which policy should one prefer? Should government marriage be limited to OSM or should it be extended to SSM? Libertarianism provides no answer to that question since either policy violates different people’s rights in different ways. OSM-only is no less a violation of liberty than OSM+SSM. The difference becomes a practical one, and when it comes to libertarian interests, “prefer what the arch-enemies of libertarianism don’t want” is probably a good policy.

            Think of it this way, if we allowed Catholics to compel people to take mass, would the answer to that be to let Jews and Protestants do it to or to argue Catholics shouldn’t be able to do it at all? Same thing here.

            That’s a lousy example, because membership in a religion is voluntary and subject to whatever conditions the members agree to. So, the libertarian answer is: yes, any and all religions should be able to compel their followers to do whatever their followers agree to as part of being a member of the religion. (And some do just that already.)

            1. “As long as we have government marriage”

              This sounds like nothing more than accepting surrender before one even BEGINS to fight for some goal. As long as the state exists, we should extend it into everything so that it is not discriminatory. WTF kind of libertarian idea is this?

              Five states have banned common-law marriage (which is not ‘government marriage’ or ‘civil marriage’ – and requires no licenses) – Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Pennsylvania – SINCE this ‘libertarian moment’ with gays started. I honestly wouldn’t have expected gays to lead any charge here cuz no reason for them to. But where the eff were libertarians? These were not battles that were lost. They were battles that were not fought and afaik not even mentioned. You can’t get more intrusive and anti-libertarian than quietly accepting government intrusion into personal relationships.

              What’s the rationale here? As long as government intrudes into family/personal in one state, it should intrude into family/personal in every state?

    2. Re: JFree,

      Are gay activists more libertarian now on other issues than they were then?

      I think most activists see marriage as a government-sanctioned privilege and not as a contract between consenting individuals.

      I don’t see it one whit and it looks to me like it is absolutely nothing more than Democratic identity/victim politics and/or proto-Marxist queer theory stuff.

      Maybe but the reason is because some libertarians tend to conflate freedom with government permissiveness and not fully understand that individual freedom includes the freedom to be an asshole. I am sure most of those gay activists would agree with the premise that the government is both the guarantor and grantor of personal rights and that the only think they would want is that the government grant these rights to them in the name of equality.

      We libertarians argue from the principle that rights are derived from our human condition as thinking and acting beings, and that no government can create or bestow those rights, including the right to marry which, being just one more manifestation of your Right to Freely Assembly and our Right to Contract, we all have anyway. But included in these rights is the right to discriminate against someone for whatever reason strikes our fancy. We’re fighting a similar battle except coming from different arguments, which are indeed irreconcilable.

      1. It’s only irreconcilable when we conflate ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’. Freedoms come from nature. The common-law system is based entirely around where those freedoms interfere with another’s freedoms. Rights do emanate from government. In a pure civil law system, rights=permissions. In a combo system like ours where civil law (legislat/Constit/etc) is overlaid on a common law (mostly courts) foundation, then ‘rights’=government declaration that it will not infringe on or alienate specific freedoms. Basically, the social contract and inalienable rights stuff. But it is still emanating from government.

  49. Libertarians will recognize the right not to participate in homosexual marriages, whereas libertinists (including some who masquerade as libertarians) will reject freedom of religion for freedom of sexual license. As for transgenders, anyone is free to believe any delusion they want, but they have no right to demand that others believe that delusion. Reality trumps everything.

    1. It rubs the lotion on its skin
      Or it gets the hose again

  50. I believe that I am done with this site and with libertarianism in general. Not because of gay marriage as that fucktarded, please hit a tree soon Tony will try to claim, but because it’s very members as represented here are completely full of fucking shit.

    What I have witnessed here is nothing more than what the retarded HuffPo commenters do. If you are one that accepts and supports then more favored view on any given subject then you are good to hook. If you fucking dare to be different, then you will be attacked and insulted as can be witnessed on this thread by Warty and FreeSociety’s conversation above. Even if you don’t want to force your view on others you will still be relentlessly attacked for even holding this heretical view.

    Throw in a heaping dose of contrarian arguments even when you can plainly see what the fuck is going on (a favored tactic of the the progs) and we seem to have the same bullshit here that I have found at HuffPo,Salon, Fox, Guardian, TNR, CNN, etc.

    1. It is the nature of people. I always look at the personal attacks as a good thing. Whenever someone starts calling me a SOCON or Red Tony or on this subject screaming about interracial marriage, I know I have hit a nerve and pointed out a truth they don’t like and don’t want to hear.

      Being right never wins you any friends. People like you when you are wrong. It makes them feel good about themselves. When they don’t like you is when you are right and they are wrong. That doesn’t make them feel so good and it doesn’t win you any friends.

    2. I found this place and libertarian thought after searching and searching for something that seemed sane and where people leave each other the fuck alone, down to the personal level. I had hope and I had a few concerns early on but I ignored them.

      After several months however, I believe I can safely say that this side of things is exactly the same as all the others. Believe correctly and you’re good, believe wrong and the witch shall be burned.

      Farewell reasonoids and good luck. Also Warty, Tony, Bo, ButtFuck, John, and Nikki…..you are all some the biggest fucking assholes and contrarians I have ever seen, on par with HuffPosters. That’s not a compliment, though I’m sure dumbass Tony will take it as one. God I fucking hate Tony, I can’t stress that enough.

      1. Yeah, I am a total asshole and a total contrarian. That tends to make life hard on stupid people who come around looking for affirmation of their stupidity. If you make a good point, I am always ready to acknowledge it. If I don’t like it, I am not cutting you any slack and and am fine with you doing the same.

        Lastly, how exactly can you bitch and moan about the place being conformist and then in the next breath call everyone assholes and contrarians? Sorry, but contrarian and conformists are antonyms not synonyms last I looked.

      2. I found this place and libertarian thought after searching and searching for something that seemed sane and where people leave each other the fuck alone,

        Oh god! if you want to be left alone, don’t interact with people! If you want to have civilized debates, wander over to mises.org or liberty.me! Or hang out at grylliade although they’ve permitted some sketchy characters to sign up as commenters.

        This is Hit and Run, original slogan: “Continuous news, views, and abuse by the Reason staff”

        This may help you understand.

        1. Maybe it is Postrel using a sock puppet.

      3. In a thread about gay marriage this post stands alone as heads and tails as the most retarded, maybe only surpassed by your previous. Congratulations, you basically reached peak derp.

      4. Dammit, i didn’t make the list. Maybe I should try being meaner. Maybe I should call somebody a poopypants.

      5. Yeah, but did HuffPo ever get subpoenaed?

        Because it’s not worthy commentary until you get Preet really pissed off and Katherine really ANGRY.

        Just sayin’

      6. So you are too big of a pussy to stick around and argue your ideas? No real loss then. The people around here (and I’ve only been around a couple years) are informed, opinionated and not afraid to cross ideological philosophical swords with others here. It’s great.

        Fluffpo is the exact opposite. Stray from the party line…get banned.

        You can put out any idea you want here, but you have to be able to defend it. If you have a thin skin and want puppies and fairy dust perhaps you should move on.

        As I’ve said before, I was a libertarian before I even knew it 35 years ago when dealing with incompetent government people.

        I love this place and continually learn valuable insights from posters whether I agree with them or not. This place is what democracy should be like, an honest and brutal marketplace of ideas.

        Sorry for the rant, I’ve learned a lot and really like being around here. It’s one of the few places where honest discourse takes place on the toobz. End rant.

    3. Holy shit!

      You mean a bulletin board where anyone on earth can comment for free is full of the very same types of comments that other bulletin boards where anyone on earth can comment for free?!?

      Who woulda thunk it?

      Incidentally, I don’t believe you are sincere; because no where did you reference the Lovecraftian horror that are Agile Cyborg’s musings when he is high on shrooms.

    4. Dude welcome to the internet, where there are no life-preservers and everybody is an anonymous asshole at least some of the time. There is literally no place where a political discussion will not devolve into name calling at some point.

      1. Like I said above, when they start calling you names, that usually means you have struck a nerve.

    5. And yet, no one puts a gun to your head and forces you to log in and comment. Popular or unpopular, HuffPo or Reason, you freely make that choice.

      Call me crazy, but if that’s the worst of it, that’s not such a bad deal. And some people like (not me, but some) like the verbal bitch slap.

    6. Look on the bright side. Nobody’s arguing for you being a second-class citizen in the real world and pretending like it’s not because they’re bigoted morons.

  51. Wow. You guys have been busy. Was I the only one working today?

    1. No Adolph Weisner and troy302 have been busting their asses.

  52. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

    1. $8597 or no deal!

    2. You mean right this minute?

      No thanks. I’m going to lunch.

    1. So what? Unmarried straight couples can’t get that stuff either. And 90% of those things can be done via contract. And a few of them, like the right to file joint bankruptcy you don’t want. And a few more are flat out fallacious. Gay couple always had inheritance right. They just didn’t have inheritance rights under intestacy. Oh no gay couple had to write wills. This is just like Jim Crow. You nailed it dude.

      1. Unmarried straight couples were free to get married, if they wanted, in any jurisdiction in this country. Gays were not. Why do you continue to pretend that you can’t wrap your mind around this concept?

  53. Scott, is this way of saying you’re leaving Reason? Is this the prelude to your going-away party?

  54. It seems to me that this article should have been written the day after Lawrence v. Texas came out. When the fight was about gays’ right to live in peace and not be arrested for consensual conduct between adults, then Libertarians and gay activists were on the exact same page. When the fight became about who gets government sanction of their relationship and how much that sanction allows you to compel other people to recognize your relationship, libertarians should have checked out.

    I don’t think they should have fought against gay marriage initiatives so much as been neutral on them. Whether you get a piece of paper from the government affirming your marriage is just not something Libertarians should feel strongly about one way or another. And when the issue became about creating new positive rights, Libertarians should have been on the other side.

  55. Notice that THE TROLL (Tony) always falls back on the supposedly existent “social contract” theory when it’s pointed out how inconsistent and illogical his arguments are.

    I never signed a social contract, nor have I ever been provided a copy to review. Any one else?

    1. You may have not signed, but your parents signed it for you. Or their parents signed it.

      SOMEBODY elected FDR. SOMEBODY voted for the progressive tax rates.

      So your parents or grandparents signed it on your behalf.

      Grandparents are assholes.

  56. Activists and community organizers don’t talk about rights so much as they talk about privileges that they call rights.

  57. Polygamist Revolution In Civilization Kamp
    Members of P.R.I.C.K.! We are oppressed! Now is the time we all unite to stick it to the oppressors! The more hoes the better.
    /the next kulture war movement
    (please do no send me your news letter, and I didn’t give at the office.)

  58. Lefty gays aren’t any more tolerant than are lefty straights.

    Go figure.

  59. Nice omnibus analysis, thanks.

    Where libertarians want things is the middle ground of choice between the extremes of prohib’n & mandate. Unfortunately some of the activists on both sides of an issue?who may be the ones primarily driving the debate?tend to be for mandate or prohib’n. I’ve no doubt the ending some on the pro-homo side would be prohib’n of heterosexual behavior.

  60. Unless you enjoy walking the battlefield, bayoneting the wounded, you’ll leave these people to their own devices. History tells us the Left always over-reacts and over-reaches, this time will be no different.

  61. I propose –

    The 28th Amendment – (let them eat a nice tasty cake – or else )

    No person shall be denied a wedding cake, gay, straight, or what have you. The force of the centralized government will be used to coerce the cake baker to make a nice tasty cake that suits the wedding partners and their planners.

  62. I would say that libertarians and gays have little to nothing in common. The only freedom gays care about is the freedom to be homosexual. I have never seen them mobilizing their forces for anybody else (I acknowledge the Pink Pistols’ existence, but they are a small minority at best.)

    And their tasteless gloating and willingness to run any dissenters from their orthodoxy-of-the-moment out of employment or business leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

    Let the gays rot.

  63. I’ve seen more “libertarians” than not who are ok with this kind of coercion, because it happens to achieve something they agree with.

    It’s pointless to even have this discussion anymore, but some of what’s said here makes sense, though PLENTY of it goes way too far, and makes sweeping generalizations about what “libertarians” *should* believe. At any rate, the faux concern for religious liberty, especially coming from the atheist-dominated Reason magazine, isn’t going to persuade anyone that either a) “libertarians” are genuinely interested at all in that issue, or b) that the gay rights movement is going to be content with complete and total submission of every religious group and organization everywhere to its demands, or else their eradication. There is no “parting of the ways”. And there never will be.

    1. *content with anything less than

  64. I agree most of this, but completely disagree with the view on the transsexual (transgender) issue. It seems that for some reason, we are to defer to someone’s claim on how they feel (and force others to accept that claim at face value), rather than by observable facts (where we will punish those who react to the observable facts – as in the woman who was kicked out of a gym facility for objecting to a man entering the locker room while she was undressing because he claimed to be transgender). There is, as this article acknowledges, no certainty on what causes this biological sex dysphoria. What is known is that different kinds of body dysphoria have been diagnosed in people – some as severe as desiring self-amputation. We also have the example of the recent case of transracial identification (identifying as black, but being biologically white). Why not allow people to identify themselves as any race or ethnicity they choose, since those are much smaller leaps than removal and exchange of sexual organs? Lastly, why is it OK to expect a heterosexual woman to accept a fully-equipped male in intimate quarters, but not OK to expect the same from a transsexual self-identified female?

  65. “As long as the transgender community is focusing on how the government is treating them,” rather than seeking treatment for their illness, there’s gonna be issues.

    You made your choice, fuck off.

  66. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  67. 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.online-jobs9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.