Cons and Progs Abuse Libertarian Ideas After the Gay Marriage Ruling

And each other!

The libertarian idea that the government should stay out of the bedroom and boardroom has played a crucial role in

joseanavas / Foter / CC BY

producing gay marriage equality in America. When liberals were referring to gay people as "queer," the Libertarian Party was demanding gay equality.

But in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling this month, both conservatives and progressives are hijacking libertarian solutions to beat each other up, I point out in my column at The Week.

Progressives want to scrap tax exemptions for religious nonprofits and states like Mississippi and Texas – egged on by Rand Paul – want to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether.

These are good means, but terrible ends that libertarians should resent and resist.

Go here to view the whole thing.

Comments

[Free Society]

When liberals were referring to gay people as "queer," the Libertarian Party was demanding gay equality.

There's lots to criticize "liberals" about, but their past use of PC nomenclature, which has since become non-PC compliant is not exactly a great criticism.

Abolitionists use to call blacks "negroes" and "coloreds", can you believe it?!?!?

[Azathoth!!]

I think Shikha was referring to when liberals were not really that well disposed towards them queers.

Because that was a thing. However much they'd like you to forget it--in much the same way that they're using the Roof massacre to get Americans to send the most visible symbols of their purportedly< past racism down the memory hole.

[GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard]

"Shikha was referring to when liberals were not really that well disposed towards...queers."

Well, at least they've always been great friends of Blacks

[Adans smith]

Getting the government out of marraige is good,but,that will take a big rewrite of the tax code.The whole damn thing is built on favors. Most people pay little or no taxes untill you hit 1000,000$ or so.As for non profits,the props going to gore there own? There's many left wing not for profits.Oh,just churches!!! How about the Cancer society and Red Cross,huh? What would the commie pope think of this huh?

[WTF]

Most people pay little or no taxes untill you hit 1000,000$ or so.

Good to discover I actually pay little to no taxes. I guess my paycheck just gets seriously reduced by osmosis, or magic, or something.

[Agammamon]

Yeah.
15% right off the top for federal income tax. Another 1.5% (min) for state.

Then add in SS, FICA, Medicare, and sales taxes.

I make jack shit and still throw a good 20% away.

[Rhywun]

Here in NYC you're already losing 40% at around 50K.

[Adans smith]

Really,15% after all the exemptions and deductions at the end of the year? Bullshit.You do have to pay FICA off thje top,but not income taxes.The average peson payed 5.6% for the last yeasrs there are records. A family of 4 writes off 28000$ in standard dedutions and personal exemptions.The tax code is vey top heavy.As for state ,city and sales,that's another thing..

[Adans smith]

BTY,federal taxes start at 10% after deductions and exemtions and no,you do not start at 49% in NY.Yes it's high there. Tax rates have to be examined at the acual rate after write offs.A family of 4 pays very little in federal income taxes

[WTF]

Wrong. After deductions and exemptions my effective federal tax rate is usually around 22%.

[spqr2008]

That's about right for my tax rate, and I make in the low $30K range. Luckily state and local taxes only equal about 3% total, so I only pay 25% to the state in income taxes.

[robc]

Fica is a tax on income, hence an income tax.

[sarcasmic]

Since neither public-accommodation nor anti-discrimination laws are going away anytime soon, they were a package deal with SSM. So all of these consequences were foreseeable. Something about foreseeable consequences...

[WTF]

Sure, that's why civil unions were not acceptable, because they didn't come with the ability to use the power of government force to coerce acceptance and participation.

[John]

That was when the gay rights activists gave away the game and Libertarians should have walked away. Libertarians objected to marriage licenses in the first place. To the extent that gay couples were treated unequally with married straight couples, the solutions should have been to change the rules and treat them the same, not automatically issue marriage licenses.

Think about the classic tale of woe gay marriage advocates gave, the gay who couldn't get into see his dying partner because the evil hospital would only let family in. That is a pretty good sob story as sob stories go. Of course unmarried straight couples had the same problem. Lots of straight couples are together for decades without buying into government marriage. And they are in the same position as gay couples. Wouldn't the better solution to that problem just make hospitals respect the wishes of their patients, gay or straight? That would have solved the issue for everyone.

Pretty much every harm of not recognizing gay marriages could have been dealt with in a way that made things more fair for everyone without declaring a right to government recognition of your marriage. But, no one, even Libertarians who should have known better, would listen.

[Napoleon Bonoparte]

Think about the classic tale of woe gay marriage advocates gave, the gay who couldn't get into see his dying partner because the evil hospital would only let family in.

Indeed. It was pretty amusing to see libertarians supporting gay marriage as a tool for doing an end run around the hospital's property rights.

[John]

And taking responsibility for your own affairs. In all of those cases, the couple didn't execute a medical power of attorney. Really all being married does in that situation is make your spouse your default decision maker and alleviates the need for a medical POA in many situations. Libertarians somehow convinced themselves that the government's failure to relieve you of the need to take responsibility for your own affairs was an enormous denial of your rights.

[R C Dean]

Think about the classic tale of woe gay marriage advocates gave, the gay who couldn't get into see his dying partner because the evil hospital would only let family in.

Yeah, well, that's what happens when you fuck up and don't get your shit together. From memory:

If the dying partner had named her(?) gay partner as her health care agent, none of that would have happened. Without that, the hospital is required by law to default to the family as being the decision-maker. The family barred the gay partner, and the hospital had little choice but to go along.

As always with these proggy "just-so" stories, it was a pile of crap.

[John]

Exactly RC. The entire thing is gay couples demanding the government relieve them of the responsibility of looking after their affairs. Yet, somehow Libertarians decided they had a point.

[BigT]

The problem is that marriage is a contract that most couples have never seen and is revised by the govt.

Solution: the state should only recognize civil unions and officiants should be required to have the parties sign the full contract in writing. Standard contracts that include designated 'alternates' for med etc situations would be available at the library or online.

If you want more marriage, consult your chosen sky pilot.

[John]

BigT,

There are two parts to government marriage. The first is, as you suggest, a set of default contract terms enforced on couples. You don't get to agree how your marriage will be dissolved if it ever is or how your things will divided, the state decides for you. The best you can do is get a good lawyer and opt out of some but not all of those provisions. But if you don't opt out, that is how it goes.

The second part is your ability to force other people to recognize your marriage. Your Catholic boss doesn't get to say your marriage before the JOP isn't treated the same as your co-workers' marriages that happened before a priest.

How exactly Libertarians decided that the Libertarian position was to demand that gay couples be subject to terms enforced by the government and be given the power to coerce others is something no one ever seems to be able to explain.

[Cytotoxic]

How exactly Libertarians decided that the Libertarian position was to demand that gay couples be subject to terms enforced by the government and be given the power to coerce others is something no one ever seems to be able to explain.

Again, that's just your retarded strawman. No libertarian ever demanded that. Last I checked, gay marriage was voluntary.

[John]

No Cytoxic, you are either too stupid or too dishonest to admit it, so you yell Strawman because you have nothing else to say. That is all government marriage is, a set of enforced contract terms and the ability to force people to recognize your marriage. That is it. And both of those are from a Libertarian perspective bad things.

[Cytotoxic]

That's why we're trying to get the government out of it, moron.

That is all government marriage is, a set of enforced contract terms and the ability to force people to recognize your marriage.

That and the legal bennies. Hence the need for marriage equality. If government is going to be involved, it must be fair(er).

[John]

That's why we're trying to get the government out of it, moron.

No. You spent the last decade demanding that gay couples get in on the action. The only thing people like you have accomplished is to get the government more involved in marriage. Yet, you claim you want it out. Again, you are either dishonest and want it in or you are a moron. It is really anyone's guess.

That and the legal bennies.

And those can be granted to every person and the problem solved without getting the government more involved in marriage. But that wasn't good enough for poser idiots like you.

[Cytotoxic]

You mean the consequences that only exist in your tiny head right? There is no evidence SSM is leading to more ADA suits.

[BearOdinson]

She does a decent job going after the progs and their war on churches. Actually using a reference. But then she goes against the Right:
"Pulling it out now (to eliminate state licensing of marriage) to deny gays an opportunity to get married ? in a sense, keeping alive discrimination by privatizing it ? will not just pervert the idea but also discredit it, just as the bedrock libertarian principle of voluntary association became suspect when it was invoked by racists during the Civil Rights struggle to legitimize private discrimination against blacks." Without a single reference.

Are there religious folks who are signing onto this idea out of homophobia? Probably. But I know at least as many socons that honestly would rather get the state of marriage altogether because to them marriage is between themselves and their god alone.

An idea may be good or bad, but not because of who may be supporting it.

[Matrix]

Indeed. I have been wanting to end marriage licenses long before gay marriage was legalized.

If, tomorrow, the KKK decided they support expanding welfare benefits and taxing businesses more to pay for it as well as increasing minimum wage to $20/hour would the progs suddenly hate the idea?

[BigT]

+1 Senalor from W Va

[Overt]

Her argument also doesn't make much sense.

Let's say Texas stops issuing Marriage Licenses. They will have to rewrite a whole host of other laws that deal with legally married couples. How will this really have the impact she claims- "in a sense, keeping alive discrimination by privatizing it"?

Once Texas stops considering people based on marriage status, there will be no more or less discrimination in the public sector. People will get married- both gays and straights as there are still hundreds of thousands of people in that state supportive of gay marriage. Some "officiants" will still object to marrying gays. But it won't matter. Texas will still have to deal with the legal ramifications of forming and dissolving these civil unions- property allocation, end of life care, custody grants, etc. And they will have to do it in a sexual-preference-agnostic manner.

So exactly how is this a cudgel? The author's vague argument smacks of her sitting down and saying "Oh shit, the GOP is doing exactly what I would prefer. But I can't be in the position of agreeing with those assholes, so I need to figure out a way to condemn them for it." It is exactly the "Principals not Principles" BS that we call out Team Red and Team Blue for all the time.

[John]

^^THIS^^

That is exactly the system Libertarians have always demanded. And here they might actually get it and Dalmia is angry because it might be happening because people don't like gays.

I read this and it makes me think Dallmia doesn't object to government marriage. She is fine with government marriage as long as gays are getting in on the action too. She doesn't want freedom, she wants gays treated special.

[Overt]

Even moreso, Dalmia's argument is complete bullshit. The Conservatives aren't trying to get Texas out of the marriage game because of some convoluted, unsubstantiated conspiracy to "discriminate through privatization." She offers absolutely zero explanation of how this could possibly be achieved in a state of millions. I cannot for the life of me understand how this would happen.

No, Texans are doing this to save their pride. They see gays as illegitimate and they don't want some Fed forcing them to smile and legitimize what they see as a bastardization of their culture. It isn't about some sort of private discrimination- they would privately discriminate against gay couples whether or not the State said they were married.

Conservatives learned a valuable lesson in this case- if they can make the government make these moral choices in their favor, their opponents can use the same government to make moral choices in others' favor. The best option is to keep the government from making these moral decisions one way or the other. It would have been nice if the Conservatives had seen this problem 10 years ago, but they didn't until it was their ox being gored. So what? Celebrate their conversion (finally), don't make it even harder for them.

[John]

I think the long term potential upside to all of this is that it is going to wake a lot of conservatives and Christian conservatives up to the dangers of government and make their movement much more subversive to the current system. And that will over the long run be a very good thing. Libertarians, if they are honest and smart, should embrace real counter cultures. Whenever a culture stops playing ball and walks away from caring or wanting government blessing that weakens government and is a good thing.

For the Progs, the gay marriage high will be a short one. And it frankly will be a short high for gays. The novelty of getting a marriage license will fade pretty quickly. Most gays don't want to get married. The real effects of gay marriage will fade. The long term affects of finally getting Christian Conservatives to realize government is their enemy likely won't.

[Mr. Paulbotto]

Even worse than that for the progs, if they really actually try to go after the tax statuses of all religious non profits, they're going to be taking a lot of black and Hispanic churches with them, who play a lot larger role in they're respective communities than white suburban churches do. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that that could potentially backfire on the progs and their project to dominate the pools via identity politics.

[John]

I would like to think that this would finally be the last straw with the black community. But I have thought that before.

[Mr. Paulbotto]

It doesn't have to be the last straw with the black community. It really only has to be with about 10% of them. Obama wins 85% of the black vote in 2012 and a guy who put his dogs on the roof of his car is President today. And that's to say nothing of Hispanics.

[John]

Are there religious folks who are signing onto this idea out of homophobia? Probably. But I know at least as many socons that honestly would rather get the state of marriage altogether because to them marriage is between themselves and their god alone.

The answer to that question is so what. It is their right to be so. You don't get your rights based on whether your reason for using them are deemed good and proper. Your reasons for using them are your own. Either people have a right refuse to recognize gay marriages or they don't. Their right to do so does not depend on whether Dalmia or anyone else judges their motives pure and gay affirming enough.

What the hell ever happened to defending people's right to be wrong?

[The Shrubber's Woodchipper]

Privatizing marriage is a long-standing libertarian idea whose whole purpose was to foster John Stuart Mill's "thousand experiments in living." Pulling it out now to deny gays an opportunity to get married ? in a sense, keeping alive discrimination by privatizing it ? will not just pervert the idea but also discredit it, just as the bedrock libertarian principle of voluntary association became suspect when it was invoked by racists during the Civil Rights struggle to legitimize private discrimination against blacks.

Dalmia asserts that states adopting this position are trying to deny gays the right to marriage, but for that to be true, you must accept the claim that they are trying to deny the right of marriage to all. This is obviously not the case. I'd have to agree with Overt below that she feels the need to distance herself from the yucky Socons who have adopted her position.

[R C Dean]

Pulling it out now to deny gays an opportunity to get married

Somebody needs to explain to me why privatized marriage would not be available to gays.

[Overt]

There is a difference between saying "If you aren't going to play by my rules, I'm taking my ball and going home" and saying "If you aren't going to play by my rules, you all can play all you want but I'm out of it."

Essentially, Texas is considering doing the latter. One would think Dalmia would embrace this decision. If everyone agreed on the gay marriage issue, it wouldn't be a fucking issue, would it?

[Dark Lord of the wood chipper]

"Go here to view the whole thing"

This was the only sentence in the entire post that isn't a fallacy or open to considerable debate.

[mad.casual]

Right. Definitely not leaving Reason for a piece written by Dalmia.

[R C Dean]

The libertarian idea that the government should stay out of the bedroom and boardroom has played a crucial role in producing gay marriage equality in America.

Don't kid yourselves.

Gay marriage licensing doesn't keep government out of the bedroom. Government wasn't in the gay bedroom in the first place.

Gay marriage licensing certainly doesn't keep government out of the boardroom. It certainly doesn't reduce the Total State's current seat at the table. As we are seeing, it will likely increase the Total State's demands on companies.

While its a good thing that gay folk can get officially married now (instead of just, you know, married), having libertarians join a movement that is premised on the notion that something isn't real until the government says it is strikes me as . . . . odd.

[sarcasmic]

having libertarians join a movement that is premised on the notion that something isn't real until the government says it is strikes me as . . . . odd.

The only thing I can think of is they didn't want to be shunned by their gay peers. Peer pressure. It's like being back in high school, and once again I'm not one of the cool kids.

[mad.casual]

IMO, it's more like pre-K where somebody runs off to tell the teacher because the cool kids won't pay attention to or play with them.

At least, the cool kids in my HS couldn't care less what their peers (gay or otherwise) thought.

[Napoleon Bonoparte]

That's been remarked upon before...

When you first come to DC, this is the first thing you learn. Again, there are two parties and only two parties. You have to pick one. You can get by in the bureaucracy for a while without picking one (everyone will assume you're a Democrat), but most "non-governmental" positions require you to pick sides right away (unofficially, of course). Law firms in DC are generally allied with a party. Reporters obviously are. Etc.

...

(This seems to be a lesson that libertarians stubbornly refuse to learn. They say they're libertarian as if that means something different than Republican ? which it certainly doesn't to anyone that matters in DC. This lesson was a difficult for your humble blogger to learn when he moved to DC and considered himself a libertarian. Some of the mainstream libertarians that refer to themselves as "liberaltarians" or some such nonsense seem to have internalized this lesson without really learning it. What they want is to be considered Democrats in DC ? like all the cool kids ? while not being forced to identify as Democrats outside of DC. Is it possible to sell out but not sell out? Good luck with that. Anyway . . .)

[John]

That statement is completely irrational. How is it that a movement demanding government sanction of private sexual relationships is a movement to "keep the government out of the bedroom"? Dalmia seems to have bought into the totalitarians fantasy that if the government doesn't sanction what you do, you are not free to do it.

[sarcasmic]

Driving home the day after the ruling, there was a piece on NPR about a gay couple that was so happy that their love could now be validated.

It ain't valid unless Uncle Sam says it's valid.

[R C Dean]

Fascists, one and all:

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

[Notorious G.K.C.]

More like "suck it, Mom and Dad, look at my state-issued validation!"

[Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)]

Well, considering that government and society are just interchangeable terms for the same concept...

/prog

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I understand the need to practice moral equivalence, because God forbid there be any suggestion that one of our political factions is more hostile to liberty than the other, but come on, this is ridiculous.

On the one hand, progs - up to the Solicitor General of the United States - indicate that they may try to revoke the tax exemptions of schools which define marriage as Obama defined it about five years ago. This would be like revoking the Reason Foundation's nonprofit status in retaliation for Reason staffers criticizing the U.S. attorney in New York.

On the other hand, officials in some conservative states are suggesting that, as I understand it, married couples register their union by filing affidavits without help from government officials, and that their ceremony gets conducted in front of some minister or other private person, not a judge or bureaucrat.

And this is supposed to be the moral equivalent of crushing conservative Christian schools?

[prolefeed]

Yeah, basically Shikia is pretending that conservatives talking about going full on libertarian for one issue is exactly the same as leftists wanting to institute a new tax for their political opponents, which is exactly the opposite of libertarian.

There's no moral equivalence here. One side is talking about increasing freedom a lot, the other side is talking about decreasing freedom a lot.

[creech]

For profit companies pay taxes on their profits and get to carryforward any losses. A non-profit would pay taxes on what? By definition, they don't make any profits to be taxed, so what is the beef with them losing tax-free status?

[The Shrubber's Woodchipper]

You're not an accountant, are you?

[John]

The biggest beef is that if you lose your non-profit status, donations to you are no longer tax deductible. That is a huge deal to colleges.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

And to the Reason Foundation.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

If you want to know if an outfit is a nonprofit, check their donation page, they'll be sure to let you know.

"Reason Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization (ID #95-3298239); as such, contributions are tax-deductible in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code."

https://www.reason.com/donatenow/donate.php

[R C Dean]

There are non-profits that aren't tax-exempt. Mainly, trade associations.

[R C Dean]

What I was thinking of was actually deductibility of donations.

Donations to (c)(3)s are generally deductible. Donations to other flavors (mainly (c)(6)s) are not.

Carry on.

[John]

I am not that familiar with nonprofit tax law. I wonder if advocacy for segregation or banning interracial marriages would get a foundation's tax exempt status yanked. I honestly don't know. If it would, and I would not be surprised if it did, then Reason might be in some jeopardy.

That said, I think Reason is probably safe since they are only advocating. They no doubt recognize gay partners of employees. The colleges are going to be in trouble because they will refuse to recognize gay marriages and make their students agree not to enter into them as a condition of attendance.

The college that comes to mind that will most run afoul of this is BYU. BYU makes all students sign a pledge that they will not engage in pre-marital sex and can and does expel any student found to break the pledge. Last I looked the Mormons did not recognize gay marriage. I can't see how a married gay person could attend BYU.

[R C Dean]

I wonder if advocacy for segregation or banning interracial marriages would get a foundation's tax exempt status yanked.

Not at this point. But, now that the SJW locusts have the green light to purge ungoodful thoughts from the proles, revoking tax-exempt status is explicitly one of their tools, and a precedent will be set.

[prolefeed]

I can't see how a married gay person could attend BYU.

I can't see WHY a married gay person would want to attend BYU, unless they were masochistic and wanted to be in one the most homophobic environments on the planet outside a Muslim madrasa.

[John]

They would attend for the same reason someone like Sandra Fluke attended Georgetown Law, even though there were tons of law schools who provided her with insurance that included birth control. They go there to fuck with people and to make sure that every organization is co-opted to serve Prog ends or is destroyed.

[Overt]

^Pretty much this^

Many people in this world are horrified that others don't agree with them. Somehow their self worth is so wrapped up in how many vigorous nodding heads they can get on the soapbox that it is unconscionable to allow wrong-thinkers to exist. And so they seek to punish those who dare disagree with them.

Mind you, they aren't looking to scorn those people. They aren't looking to ostracize those people. They want them to be humiliated under threat of punishment from the government, and possibly punished on top of that.

[Swiss Servator, rudert schwer!]

"income"

[R C Dean]

A non-profit would pay taxes on what?

Its net revenues, just like a for-profit.

"Non-profit" doesn't mean "loses money every year". It means the net revenues aren't distributed to owners.

[prolefeed]

Salmon hinted he would be fine with the "libertarian" solution to "abolish tax exemption for all religious organizations."

When, exactly, did implementing a brand new tax on political opponents be considered even remotely a libertarian idea, Ms. Dalmia?

[John]

No shit. If the solution was to end tax exempt status for all non profit organizations, that might be a Libertarian solution. That is not what Salmon is advocating however. Understand universities and NGOs like the Sierra club would continue to get their non profit status. Salmon's solution is to use the tax code to single out and punish religious nonprofits. So I could set an organization to help the homeless and be tax exempt and all of the donations to it tax exempt just as long as I didn't say my religion was why I was doing it. So discriminating against those who exercise their religious freedom is now the "Libertarian solution"?

I am sorry to be harsh but Dalmia is an embarrassment.

[prolefeed]

No shit. If the solution was to end tax exempt status for all non profit organizations, that might be a Libertarian solution.

Not seeing how proposing a brand new tax for an even broader class of organizations is remotely libertarian, unless you define fairness in oppression as being as libertarian, unlike, say ending theft for everyone.

[John]

I agree. I was just granting that for the sake of argument. Ending all tax exempt status would at least not be discriminating against people for the crime of exercise their 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

[Azathoth!!]

Getting government out of marriage shrinks government power by definition.

Revoking tax exempt status expands government by definition.

Where does Shikha stand? At the wrong point on both issues.

[John]

Revoking tax exempt status expands government by definition.

It is worse than that. It is revoking the tax exempt status of one group of people for the crime of exercising their 1st Amendment protected right to free exercise of religion. So Dalmia views a system where two colleges can operate next door to each other and serve the exact same function but one is tax exempt and the other is not because one of them commits the crime of being religious based as a "libertarian solution"

[R C Dean]

Revoking tax exempt status expands government by definition.

Not necessarily. Tax-exempt status is, itself, a tool for government demands and involvement. Look at the hoops you have to jump through to keep tax-deferred status for your retirement plans. Take a gander at the Internal Revenue Code for tax-exempts and non-profits.

I can see an argument that a broader, simpler tax code results in less government impact on civil life than a complicated code that hands out lots of favors.

[John]

That is true. But understand they are not simplifying the tax code. The special benefits for nonprofits would still be there. They would just no longer be available to religious organizations. That is straight up discrimination.

[R C Dean]

Yeah, I was thinking more broadly in terms of just removing tax exempt status from the tax code altogether.

[John]

That would I think be a "Libertarian solution", no matter what you think of its merits. Just ending it for religious organizations while continuing it for everyone else is anything but Libertarian. How fucking dare Dalmia claim otherwise.

[Mr. Paulbotto]

That is true. But understand they are not simplifying the tax code. The special benefits for nonprofits would still be there. They would just no longer be available to religious organizations. That is straight up discrimination.

Yeah, but it's discriminating against the discriminators. So it's totally cool. And if you disagree then you are rayciss.

[Mainer2]

How are you going to re-engineer society with a simpler tax code ?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

IIRC, some commenters suggested that SoCons should rely on libertarians to defend their (SoCon's) rights.

Is anyone here ready to defend that proposition?

[John]

I am not sure what that means.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I seem to recall a discussion when some (not all) commenters suggested that it was time for SoCons to step aside and let the libertarians defend their (SoCons') freedom. The idea was that SoCons were strictly yesterday's news and their influence was declining, so they should just hand the religious-freedom baton the libertarians.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

*to* the libertarians.

[John]

No. Most of the commenters on this board don't think that. That seems to be Nick Gillespie's position. He posted shortly after the decision how the all important youths won't vote for the GOP if they are in any way considered intolerant.

The one Reason writer who has unequivocally said this is where Libertarians and the gay community part ways is Shackelford. The others seem to be divided into two camps; the Dalmia hand wringing "its a shame to see leftists take away religious freedom but the SOCONs are equally to blame by using their freedom in such horrible ways" and the Nick Gillespie "fuck them they are yesterday's news let the Prog fascist mobs do their worst" position.

[chipper me timbers]

So-Cons are the flipside of the proggie coin. They should ALL sit the fuck down.

[John]

So the SOCONs don't have a right to the free exercise of their religion? If not, why not? And if so, why must they sit down and recognize marriages that violate their religious beliefs?

[Cytotoxic]

Stop talking to the libertarians in your head John. Better yet, just stop.

[John]

Did you forget your meds? Did you not read the statement I was responding too?

Go away Cytoxic. You don't know anything about this subject and you have nothing to ad. We get it. You love gays and gay marriage. You really have nothing to say beyond that.

[Cytotoxic]

I know plenty of the subject, whereas it does not matter what you know. Knowledge is wasted on someone like you. Your head is ensconced in your ass; you love your narratives about what a victim you are too much not to believe them. That's why you can't listen to anything but the (retarded) voices in your head.

[John]

I know plenty of the subject

No you don't. You don't understand how marriage and family law works. You don't understand the coercive nature of government sanctioned marriage. Most of all, you can't understand how government sanctioned marriage is intertwined with public accommodation. And you have no interest in learning. Every time someone tries to explain it to you you just start screaming about how you hate SOCONS so much and how you want the government out of marriage.

I have never once seen you say a single true or astute statement about this subject. You never have and likely never will.

[antiquarian]

I'd argue instead that what ought to be pointed out is the many ways the Left is becoming much like the Religious Right, with strong emphasis on the extremist witch-hunts of men on college campuses.

[Cytotoxic]

We are the ONLY ones they can rely one. They certainly can't get the job done, even for themselves.

[John]

No you are not. They have themselves. And they can't rely on you. You hate their guts and will do anything for prog approval. Moreover, even if you wanted to help them, you couldn't because you are fucking delusional and can't even grasp the issues at hand.

You are so mendacious or stupid, I am honestly not sure which, you can't even grasp the connection between government marriage and public accommodation. No one wants your help Cytoxic. You and other posers like you have done enough damage. Do yourself and everyone else a favor and quietly skulk off and go talk about Mexicans or food trucks or something.

[Cytotoxic]

You hate their guts and will do anything for prog approval.

"Wah! Stop being right or I'm going to TELL LIES ABOUT YOU!"

You are so mendacious or stupid

Holy shit the projection. What is it with conservatives being such mendacious crybabies? The whinier they get the more they lie.

They have themselves.

And they'll fuck it up like they always do. We are all you have.

[John]

Cytoxic, you won't admit or are too stupid to understand the connection between government marriage and public accommodation. For you government marriage just means a bunch of tax breaks, which you can't even explain. You can't admit or don't understand the coercive aspects of marriage and its relationship to public accommodation. Maybe it is because you are Canadian and are just that profoundly ignorant of how American law works or maybe it is because you are just delusional and can't make logical connections that don't fit your fantasies. I don't know. The fact is, however, you can't make the connection and it makes you completely useless regarding this subject. You literally have nothing to ad and never had had anything to ad other that how much you love gays and gay marriage and how much you hate SOCONs and how they better listen to you and how much you hate anyone who doesn't support gay marriage now. That is it. You have never made a comment on this subject that wasn't' just one of those three statements said in different ways.

As I said, go away. You are of no help to anyone.

[chipper me timbers]

" want to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether.

These are good means, but terrible ends that libertarians should resent and resist."

this is where I stopped reading. It's self-evident that the government should have no involvement with the concept of marriage whatsoever.

[John]

Those two statements don't even make sense. So not issuing marriage licenses is a "good means" but the ends it achieves are bad such that Libertarians should object. If the results of the state no longer issuing marriage licenses are so bad, how are they a good means? Does Shika think that the state should only stop issuing marriage licenses if doing so won't allow people to refuse to recognize gay marriages? If so, just how would that be achieved?

[antiquarian]

It's no kind of a solution to say to conservatives, keep off of our libertarian ideas 'cause the interpretation of them that you like is going to taint them. That the ideas would allow for private discrimination is not a strained interpretation of them. It's a pretty basic corollary which the Left cites and will cite regularly in opposition to them. Confronting that head-on is better than to suggest, in effect, as you do, that we can popularize these ideas if we only can manage to frame them in ways that exclude un-likeable ways people use liberty.

I offer a better suggestion: that we point out the ways the precedent being set can be turned against other things that people like, and try to prove that law is a two-edged sword which makes a very bad weapon in the culture war.

[black blood]

Yet another completely retarded article from miss Dalmia. How does Texas or Mississippi's refusal to issue marriage licenses discriminate against anyone?

[TxJack 112]

The left wants to abolish religion because it limits the power of the State because people maintain a belief we are accountable to a higher power not of this earth. Progressives wish for people to only be accountable to the government and those who control it. Conservatives continue to try and use religion as a tool to impose their religious values on everyone to reshape the US into their vision of what the Founding Fathers intended even though any one with a brain can see in a second it is wrong