MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rapid Rise in Same-Sex Marriage Support Since 2013 Cuts Across Age, Race, Religious Lines: Reason Roundup

Plus: Google's office culture is a factious mess and the checking in on the "gig economy."

Richard Levine/agefotostock/NewscomRichard Levine/agefotostock/NewscomMajorities of most U.S. groups now support same-sex marriage. Sixty-one percent of Americans now favor the legalization of same-sex marriage, according to new research from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). Five years ago, the number was just a tad over 50 percent. The U.S. has seen a "sea change in support for LGBT rights that now crosses lines of race, ethnicity, religion and geography," said PRRI Research Director Dan Cox.

The new poll—conducted over eight months in 2017, with more than 40,000 participants—found that same-sex marriage support had risen across political, racial, and religious groups, including some for which this was still a minority position in 2013. For instance, support among blacks rose from 41 percent in 2013 to 52 percent last year, with the largest shift occuring among black Protestants.

Support rose twice as much among American seniors over the past five years as it did among young adults, though support among the younger generations was much higher to begin with. In 2013, 72 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed said the favored the legalization of same-sex marriage; in last year's survey, it was 77 percent. Meanwhile, nearly half (47 percent) of the 65+ cohort surveyed last year favored same-sex marraige, up from 36 percent in 2013.

A few other key takeaways:

  • A slight majority of Republicans still opposed same-sex marriage (51 percent) in 2017, as did more than a quarter of Democrats (27 percent).
  • Most religious groups in the U.S. now support same-sex marriage, including 97 percent of Unitarians, 80 percent of Buddhists, 80 percent of the religiously unaffiliated, 77 percent of Jewish people, 75 percent of Hindus, 67 percent of white mainline Protestants, 66 percent of white Catholics, 66 percent of Orthodox Christians, 65 percent of Hispanic Catholics, and 51 percent of Muslims.

That puts support for same-sex marriage higher among American Muslims than among Republicans.

FREE MINDS

Google's intra-office culture is a mess, says a new exposé from The Wall Street Journal. At the company's Sillicon Valley headquarters, "fractious groups of employees have turned the workplace into a virtual war zone of debate over all manner of social and political beliefs," reporters Kirsten Grind and Douglas MacMillan write:

Google has long promoted a work culture that is more like a college campus—where loud debates and doctrinaire stances are commonplace—and today its parent, Alphabet...is increasingly struggling to keep things under control.

"Activists at Google" helped organize a rally critical of President Donald Trump's policies. "Militia at Google" members discussed their desire to overturn a prohibition on guns in the office. "Conservatives at Google" allege discrimination against right-leaning job candidates. "Sex Positive at Google" group members are concerned that explicit content is being unfairly removed from Google Drive file-sharing software.

"Googlers For Animals" invited the PETA president, only to be undercut by members of the "Black Googler Network."

Now, "Google executives are preparing to issue a new set of guidelines around what can and can't be said on internal forums," the Journal reports, "as the internal political battles have begun to seep out into public view and even threaten to affect Google's business," including one recent bid for a contract to help the U.S. Department of Defense with drone intelligence.

FREE MARKETS

"Growth in the gig economy has been fairly robust," reports Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. "But it's starting from a pretty low base. It's still not a very big factor in the overall economy."

Drum has been casting skepticism on the idea that the so-called "gig economy" (your Uber drivers and so on) is "exploding," pointing out that the percentage of people in part-time work has been relatively steady from 1996 to 2018.

But states are still wary of new companies and business models, and battles over the rules and regulations that apply to them continue going strong. A unanimous Monday decision from the California Supreme Court made it harder "for employers to classify their workers as independent contractors," notes the Los Angeles Times. The ruling not only has "implications for the growing gig economy...and other app-driven services," the paper says, but "could extend to nearly every employment sector."

Related:

QUICK HITS

Photo Credit: Richard Levine/agefotostock/Newscom

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    FAKE NEWS FROM SOAVE. Look who's back.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    General MacArthur?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Baby?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    [puts Baby in the corner]

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Thin Lizzie?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The Terminator?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Sexy?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Caps?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Certainly their game plan of hitting Penguins players in the head. Maybe it will work this year.

  • ||

    /quietly steps between Fist and Ken.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Bad idea, Rufus.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Citizen X, apparently.

  • Sevo||

    The Stones, but they promise this is the last time.

  • loveconstitution1789||

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Mrs. Fist?

  • ||

    Hello.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Finally, Rufus is back!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Facebook wants to own your love life now too.

    I got my love life for you Facebook right here. [points you know where]

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Your left elbow?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To stupid?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Mrs. Fist with hands on hips, standing next to untaken-out garbage?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Majorities of most U.S. groups now support same-sex marriage.

    It only matters if any of said groups are cake bakers.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Google has long promoted a work culture that is more like a college campus—where loud debates and doctrinaire stances are commonplace—and today its parent, Alphabet...is increasingly struggling to keep things under control.

    There's a reason up until now most businesses valued professional demeanor at the office. [chases secretary around desk]

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Sixty-one percent of Americans now favor the legalization of same-sex marriage, according to new research from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).

    It'll finally be legal any day now.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I suspect it would be lower if it weren't so clear expressing the opposite opinion might have consequences down the road.

  • SusanM||

    Facebook wants to own your love life now too.

    If that means they're taking ownership of remembering anniversaries and birthdays, I'm down with it.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    That's about the only thing I use Facebook for.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    "I don't have all the answers that a celebrity's supposed to have," Kanye West said

    Hang on. What questions does Kanye think he's expected to know the answers to?

  • H. Farnham||

    Hey, I'm just happy Kanye takes his celebrity status so seriously. Finally, an entertainer who realizes they're supposed to be guiding lights and institutional pillars in all things regarding politics, morality, social issues, and lyrical word-smithing.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "What questions does Kanye think he's expected to know the answers to?"

    Whether Jesus walks or not. I'm just dying to hear that one again.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The ruling not only has "implications for the growing gig economy...and other app-driven services," the paper says, but "could extend to nearly every employment sector."

    California would be great if not for the earthquakes, droughts and people.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Freakin' Weld!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Donald Trump's personal doctor, Harold Bornstein, claims the president's personal bodyguard and Trump Organization lawyers raided Bornstein's office in February 2017, confiscating all of Trump's medical records.

    It did seem like he violated confidentiality, however trivially.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    He shouldn't have published that paper in JAMA about the correlation between hand size and what those hands are used to grab.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    That puts support for same-sex marriage higher among American Muslims than among Republicans.

    And people think I'm a parody because I say libertarians should always vote Democrat, and the country will get more libertarian if more Muslims immigrate here. THIS PROVES WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. Muslims are on the right side of history, and Republicans are on the wrong side of history. I'd take Keith Ellison as President over any Republican, and yes that includes Rand Paul who some people here are bizarrely fond of.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Weak. D-

    If you're feeling uninspired, you don't have to actually post something.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    "Uninspired"? Quite the opposite. This poll validates my entire worldview: Republicans are the enemy of libertarianism, and marginalized groups — including Muslims — are our natural allies.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    [Pours some Sriracha on OBL's comments]

  • loveconstitution1789||

    OBL's comments always burn my ass on the way out anyways.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    That's because you insist on treating OBL as a legitimate commenter, despite having it pointed out to you repeatedly that they are actually a parody.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I rarely reply to OBL, which as you should have been able to see, I was replying to Morning Chipster.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Do you not understand how conversations work? Of course you were replying to Chipper, but you were talking about OBL. Who you have, in fact, replied to pretty frequently lately.

    OBL is a parody. They are a joke account, an intentional mockery of the ideas they purport to believe in. Responding to it as if it were a real person expressing genuine views means you fell for the joke.

    I hope this helps!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, Citizen's comments always burn my ass on the way out too.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Well quit putting them in your mouth, then.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Double replies Citizen? You must really need to explain what is known.

    You're comments are so bad they do not need to be ingested to burn out the anus on the way out. They're that bad.

    I hope this helps you understand what is known.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Are you telling us you let X ass fuck you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    BUCS thinks anal sex comes from the inside out, rather than the outside in. What a moron.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    You should never play with a gerbil if you don't know where it's been.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Even gerbils know they go into an anus and who's anus they've been in.

    Citizen, you know.

  • sarcasmic||

    I say libertarians should always vote for... wait for it... libertarians!

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Didn't even Bill Weld, the Libertarian Party VP candidate, basically endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016?

  • sarcasmic||

    I dunno. I voted for Gary's Johnson, not Weld.

  • Just Say'n||

    Second worst libertarian party ticket in history. Congrats

  • John||

    Who was the worst? Did the LP run Linden LaRouche one year or something?

  • Just Say'n||

    Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root (who has lost his damn mind).

    To be fair, though, I'm not convinced Gary and Bill were even running as libertarians. Unless, libertarianism is about humanitarian wars, gun control, opposing religious liberty, and endorsing the Democratic nominee. Which, to be fair, some might think that is libertarian if they read Reason

  • Just Say'n||

    Wayne Allen Root has a show on Newsmax TV (yes, apparently that is a channel) that he hosts from either his cluttered living room or a weird office. Either way he just spends all his time praising his God-King Trump.

    If Bill Weld had never been on the ticket, there is no way that Wayne Allen Root is not the most disgraceful person to ever grace the presidential ticket

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm curious, I often see full throated opposition to gun control here. They often do articles about it. And they are always against control.

    But people still comment that Reason is pro gun control. Is this some stereotype from older writers before I was here or something?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Reason seems to support background checks, and other light gun control while opposing outright bans.

    Background checks, waiting periods, and not allowing all arms to be purchased are gun control and a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic said 'Libertarians'. Weld is NOT a Libertarian. Why he was on the LP ticket, I can only guess.

  • sarcasmic||

    I said 'libertarians,' not 'Libertarians.' Rand Paul is more of a libertarian than many Libertarians.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ah. Isn't Rand Paul a Republican?

    Just kidding. I get your flow....Joe.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    (lol)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I mean, everybody had to choose for themselves, according to their own conscience, who they felt was the lesser of two evils.

    Give her credit that she recognized and actually articulated the choice for what it was.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The federal government wants a million people to hand over their DNA.

    Government loves its databases. (Oh, not the one you want, of all the people its agents kill.)

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I'd gladly give them some DNA. Poop contains DNA. Everyone, please send your samples directly to Dr. Francis Collins at NIH.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No sense incriminating yourself. Send animal poop. Gets the message across and is much harder to trace.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Sixty-one percent of Americans now favor the legalization of same-sex marriage... including 97 percent of Unitarians, 80 percent of Buddhists, 80 percent of the religiously unaffiliated, 77 percent of Jewish people, 75 percent of Hindus, 67 percent of white mainline Protestants, 66 percent of white Catholics, 66 percent of Orthodox Christians, 65 percent of Hispanic Catholics, and 51 percent of Muslims

    Given that the list of religions (+unaffliliated, which I assume include atheists/agnostics) probably covers 99% of Americans, how do these numbers ever reach a volume weighted average of 61%, unless Muslims suddenly became a huge majority in America? Every group except Muslims is greater than the total percentage. Am I missing something here?

  • John||

    The large majority of Americans are unaffiliated Christians even today. The 51% of Muslims supporting it is nice and all but I doubt they support it enough to stand up to the 49% who don't. The media never seems to grasp the concept of revealed preference versus stated preference.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The math still doesn't work out, unless you're saying that unaffiliated Christians aren't represented in the groups above.

  • John||

    They are not. I can't see where the group above counts black or Hispanic Protestants or unaffiliated of which there are millions. It is a bizarre list. Why do only Hispanic Catholics count? Why only count White Protestants? It appears to be a very cherry-picked list.

  • gormadoc||

    Reason only mentioned the religious groups in support. The actual study details the other groups.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    They left out the Waynesboro Baptists.

  • John||

    It is the Westboro Baptists and everyone knows that Democrats support gay marriage.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Democrats were against gay marriage before they were for it.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I've known some Baptists from Waynesboro. They were nice folks.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    ... for Baptists

  • gormadoc||

    It doesn't include Black Protestants, who have historically been the biggest opponents to legalization. White non-Mainline Protestants round that out.

  • John||

    That is a good point. Do black Protestants not count?

  • gormadoc||

    They only listed the groups that favored it here.

  • gormadoc||

    Although Black Protestants have really switched it up, 48% support legalization.

  • gormadoc||

    Read into it, it's LDS, JW, Evangelical Christians, and
    Hispanic Protestants (mostly Evangelical) pulling the numbers down.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    It's interesting that they would somehow break out protestants based on color, but not the other religious groups.

  • gormadoc||

    They break down Catholics into Hispanic or not. The problem is that getting too racially fine kills your sample sizes. Only whites and Hispanics are divided enough and large enough for it to be significant.

    There just aren't enough not-Asian Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims in general for it to matter.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It reeks of cherry picking for sure.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The "leaked" list of Mueller questions for President Trump seems to have come from a member of Trump's own legal team, fueling "suspicions that Trump's legal team had orchestrated the release."

    AND MUELLER LEAKED IT TO TRUMP'S TEAM. The issue is the original leak, dummies.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Speaking of leak, what ever happened to that Steele dossier?

  • Aziz al-Abubi||

    Majorities of most U.S. groups now support same-sex marriage.

    They don't want to get sued.

  • John||

    Don't worry, I am sure the mob will only bully society into believing good things.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Have you finally come around to supporting gay marriage, John?

  • John||

    I don't really have an opinion. People can marry whomever they want. My problem is with them using the gun to make people recognize that marriage. Gays have been free to marry for years. Marriage is a civil institution that the law recognizes but does not create. They just missed out on the fun and games of forcing people to recognize their marriages. That is what it was always about. Yet somehow Libertarians decided that letting one group get in on the action of forcing their views on others was the most important issue for freedom like ever!!@

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am also against stealing words to suit your political purpose.

    Marriage has historically been between a man and woman. A ______ between a man and man can be called something else to differentiate it. The resulting relationship is the still two people together.

    Same reason people don't want to call a guy wed to 5 women a marriage. That relationship is something else and needs its own term to avoid confusion.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Word definitions change, nimrod. For example, Nimrod used to refer to a skilled hunter, until Bugs Bunny used it to mock Elmer Rudd. Now it means incompetent dufus.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Word definitions don't really change that quickly or at all.

    Nimrods were a cursed group of hunting people. It now means a group of cursed dummies.

    Lefties love them some word changes like stealing Liberal to mean social freedom and then the neo-Liberal don't want anyone else to have social freedoms. Classic liberals still like social freedoms.

  • John||

    Sure words change. Reality is whatever we say it is. Good luck with that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup and now liberalism means statist rather than people that support freedoms.

    Who cares that a common language with common meanings is important to avoid confusion. I am not advocating the Academie Francaise or anthing, just that I won't be a party to changing word meaning just to change them.

    Don't fix them unless they are broken.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yup and now liberalism means statist rather than people that support freedoms.

    And justice is being perverted into meaning an initiation of force, rather than a reaction to someone else initiating force. Because fairness.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why some people still fight to keep NAP as the default.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Words change all the time. There is no definitive meaning of a word. It is all defined by context and expectation.

    Hell, if words were unchanging you couldn't explain how you got different languages all evolving from older languages.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You get different languages, from well, different languages.

    American English has words that change meanings and it has a lot more words that never change or barely change meanings.

    Latin, although not an active language like English, has words that have not changed meanings in thousands of years.

    So lets recap. To change meanings of words just to change the meaning is something I am not in support of.

    Did tacos understand the printers coming out of my mouth?

  • sarcasmic||

    Yet somehow Libertarians decided that letting one group get in on the action of forcing their views on others was the most important issue for freedom like ever!!

    I think that in many cases it was a matter of anti-religion people simply wanting to stick it to Christians. It had nothing to do with justice, but rather schadenfreude. "Ha ha, I'm going to use the government to enforce something that offends you! Neener neener! Ha ha! Fuck you, that's why!"

  • John||

    Pretty much. That whole "you today me tomorrow" thing suddenly became optional.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Another reason reactionary politics is so harmful.

    It works for you, when your side is in power. When the other side is in power....

    Treating everyone equal under the law is important. Forcing bakers to bake cakes they don't want to will lead to some other group forcing you to do something you don't want to.

  • John||

    Kayne West continues his attempt to become the Chocolate Trump by trolling Obama hard.

    He went on to troll the former president in a subtle but shocking way: "I love Obama! I'm sure we'll hang out, go to Richard Branson's island.... [It'll] be cool," said West, conjuring images of Obama frolicking in the surf with Branson. Anyone following the news recently knows that Branson's private island has been implicated in the underage sex trafficking scandal that Hollywood star Allison Mack is facing indictment for. It is highly doubtful anyone, except investigators, will be visiting Branson's island soon. Surely, West knows that.

    http://pjmedia.com/trending/ka.....and-snubs/

    What is up with these people and their sex slaves and private islands? That is one hell of an inside joke. Maybe he is just trolling Obama here but I can't help but wonder just what the hell they did on that island. The one thing about being a celebrity in this culture is that you get invited to all the parties no matter how depraved they are. That sure has a "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" feel to it.

  • Eidde||

    I don't want any hookers, just a private island with Internet access where I can stream movies and watch them in my underwear while eating nachos. The only other people on the island would be my private army of goons who make sure no one else gets on the island.

  • John||

    Hookers would get old quick. And my goons will be well armed, well paid and good at their jobs.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Islands are overrated. They get fucked by storms.

    Give me a sweet compound in the mountains or plains. That's an evil lair a man can retire to.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Volcanoes would be your Nature's Fury then?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...Bill Weld is challenging the current workings of the Electoral College, alongside a coalition that filed federal lawsuits in California, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Texas on Tuesday.

    And Reason wanted him elected to uphold the very Constitution he's suing!

  • John||

    It is principles Fist, principles. They care about principles unless it is guns or the rule of law. Those are negotiable in pursuit of the greater good.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, he won't get away THIS time!

    "Mueller subpoena of Trump said to have been suggested"
    [...]
    "Attorney John Dowd told the Associated Press that Mueller's team broached the subject in March during a meeting with Trump's legal team while they were negotiating the terms of a possible interview with the president."
    https://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/
    Mueller-subpoena-of-Trump-
    said-to-have-been-12880052.php

    The finally found that un-paid parking ticket. Or not.

  • John||

    Trump should tell him to take his subpoena and shove it up his ass. How does he plan to serve it? And who is going to enforce any contempt finding?

  • Sevo||

    Regardless of the practicalities, those suffering from TDS are convinced that a *suggestion* of a subpoena by an anonymous person is somehow proof of guilt of something or other.
    This ran on Pg 3 of the Chron, as if it was anything other than gossip.

  • John||

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new.....Row1_card1

    WASHINGTON
    A television crew from Russia's largest state-backed network swooped into downtown Miami two days before New Year's Eve, 2016, on a curious mission.

    RT, the network formerly known as Russia Today, was there to provide global news coverage of one of five unremarkable rallies across Florida that day aimed at turning the public against the nearly completed, $3 billion Sabal Trail Pipeline designed to carry natural gas to the state from Alabama.

    What the demonstrators didn't know was that so-called Russian internet trolls had been busy for two weeks encouraging people to turn out for the protests with posts on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. They used phony, American-sounding identities -- names such as Steven Cook and Amalie Baldwin.

    Tony is a Russian troll. What a surprise.

  • ||

    Google. Ah the price for being woke.

    Had they stayed clear of the stupid social engineering crap, they would have been fine.

    But nooooo, they just had to be all 'diversity'.

    Now face the monster you created and hope it doesn't rip your head off.

  • John||

    I really don't have a lot of use for Vox Day. He is generally a complete clown and his followers completely brain dead. He is right about one thing, however; if you run a company and find out one of your employees is an SJW, fire them immediately. They are like zombies. They can't be reasoned with and relentlessly pursue the single goal of destroying any institution they infect.

  • ||

    Without a doubt. I tell my nephew in university to stay clear of that shit whenever he tells me he tries to have a debate with them.

    No good can come of it. They just want to provoke for its own sake.

    And they're pure evil in their ignorance. They arrogantly and proudly wallow in it. Then there's the spinning sophistry which really pisses me off:

    https://bit.ly/2jo3L2f

    Excerpt:

    "Here are University of Southern California law professor Michael Simkovic's key takeaways on recent free speech controversies on college campuses:

    ~"Many lectures about "free speech" are not really about "free speech," but rather are intended to provoke a reaction that will discredit universities."

    It's called projection.

  • John||

    I always wondered growing up how people in Nazi Germany could believe the insane shit that they did. The rise of the SJW has shown me how they can. They are just fucking demonic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Most of it comes down to real willful ignorance. Throw in some delusion based on racism, politics, sexism, whatever. The most important ingredient is the desire to control people.

    The lefties always include words like, "there should be a law".

  • Brandybuck||

    ""But nooooo, they just had to be all 'diversity'""

    Google was only for diversity when it came to very narrow set of woke diverses. Diversity of tattoo, fine. Diversity of man bun, fine. There was even diversity of ideological thought, so long as it was kept firmly within the corral of radical leftist thought. But there are limits, even to Google, on how wacky the diversity can get. Someone with the label of "libertarian" can be tolerated because at least they're not a Rethuglican, but actually espousing the rollback of government power? No fucking way!

  • EscherEnigma||

    Had they stayed clear of the stupid social engineering crap, they would have been fine.


    Yeah, that's kind of what happens when you try to run a huge business as a big club house. There's a reason professional conduct includes a lot of "smile and nod and bite your tongue". Encouraging everyone to act like we're a big gang of friends is the problem, not the actual issues that become catalysts.

  • John||

    http://www.investors.com/polit.....gy-policy/

    Last week Reuters argued that the American shale boom should be called "Donald Trump's Revenge." The story reported that U.S. oil "now floods Europe at the expense of OPEC and Russia." Couldn't have happened to a couple of nicer guys. America is now selling more than a half-million barrels a day, thanks in no small part to the end of the oil and gas export ban in 2016.

    But remember kids the Russians wanted Trump to be President and not Hillary, who would have done everything in her power to strangle American oil production because REASONS!!

  • EscherEnigma||

    [...] thanks in no small part to the end of the oil and gas export ban in 2016.


    2016 was before Trump was president. If you want to credit a president with this, it's Obama, not Trump.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Probably more Americans want government to get out of the marriage business.

    The media doesn't really ask that question.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In all seriousness, gotta like the Caps chances of taking this series now. I'd still expect it to go seven games, and I wouldn't expect the Caps to beat the Pens twice in a row in Pittsburgh.

    Still, if they get out of Pittsburgh 2-2, I'd say the odds favor the Caps moving forward.

    Difference between now and recent years is that it used to be that whomever won in playoffs between the Caps and the Pens was almost certainly the best team in the league. That might not be true anymore.

    Freakin' anomaly of the Golden Knights might stand in their way. The Knights have four second lines and a goalie with plenty of finals experience.

    But our biggest obstacle has been Pittsburgh, everyone thought they were on fuego and would blow us away--and it hasn't been that way at all. Not at all.

    Not at all.

    Did I say not at all?

    Not at all.

  • John||

    Where is Rufus this morning? I am starting to be convinced this is the Caps year. The Pens just don't have the defense. How in the world do you give up a two on one break in the final minute like that?

  • ||

    The Caps are certainly not playing weak this year. They're showing resilience. They can do it.

    As for Vegas, they're amazing. But I think the Jets are the team to beat. I haven't seen a team play quite that way with such speed and puck passing accuracy since the 90s Wings or 80s Oilers. They're amazing.

    The Penguins have a little bit of work to do. But they're the champs so I won't discount them. Plus they have the best hockey player of this generation in Sidney Crosby.

  • John||

    Only the NHL could be screwy enough to allow an expansion team to be as good as Vegas. They have a Stanley Cup winning goaltender and are according to many the fastest skating team in hockey. I thought Sharks would take them down. Game one of that series debased me of that notion. Watch it be the Caps and an expansion team in the finals. God the NHL is wierd.

  • ||

    At least it's less predictable than the NBA.

  • John||

    It is that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Just throwing it out there, but Ovechkin's stats are better than Crosby's in the playoffs.

    I suspect much of the edge that's given to Crosby by the public is based on a few things:

    1) Crosby has his name on The Cup but Ovechkin doesn't.

    2) Crosby's goal in the Vancouver Olympics, but Ovechkin has no gold medal.

    3) Crosby is Canadian and Overchkin is a foreign interloper.

    Notice that 1) and 2) aren't specific to individual play. If the team with the greatest single player always won, that would be one thing, but its' often about guys on the third line, the goalies, and special teams.

    I'm just sayin'.

  • John||

    People forget that Crosby has fallen on his ass in the playoffs a few times as well. It is not like Crosby wins every year or that he hasn't had great teams around him.

  • ||

    You'll have to quantify that. While I think Ovechkin gets too much unjustified greed, Crosby has a better PPG and has led the playoffs in scoring. GPG goes to Ovechkin but Crosby gets the edge given he has two Conn Sythe trophies and three Cups. Never mind that Crosby has literally had to carry his club.

    Malkin is the forgotten third wheel in all this. He has been damn productive and even dominant at times.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    "In all seriousness, gotta like the Caps chances of taking this series now"

    lol no

  • John||

    The Pens are now what they have been. They can still score but they are soft and they seem disinterested in playing defense. No one since the Islanders has won three straight cups for a reason. I think a combination of age and ambivalence has finally caught up to the Pens. The Caps are the hungrier and more physical and tougher team. In the past, it has always been the Pens who were that. But not this year.

  • ||

    Isles won four in a row!

  • John||

    And the Habs won four in a row before that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That was before the cap.

  • Just Say'n||

    Robby does better links

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He's never gonna let you touch his hair.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If I could throw something into the suggestion box, it might be to have more than one person on staff contribute to morning links.

    I see it as like the front page of a newspaper. When one person is doing it all, you get a certain view. But maybe the front page should have, you know, not just highlights of the Life & Style section, but more headlines from Sports, Finance, World News, etc., too. Do you even have a sports guy?

    I guess Welch is the only guy on staff manly enough to discuss sports intelligently, so Sports is probably out. Unless you guys want to talk about how much you hate stadiums and the Star Spangled Banner, I guess--then everybody on staff has an opinion. I mean, I got nothin' against doing a Cosmo cover on a regular basis. But every day? And it kinda speaks to a lack of diversity of interest.

    I guess it's just that different people are interested in different things. But maybe every sex story isn't worthy of the top headline every day. Imagine if you went to the New York Times and the story at the top of the front page was always either about sex, sex, sex, or gay sex.

    P.S. It looks like the SEC wants to regulate Etherium as a stock offering.

  • John||

    Don't sell the reason staff short. I bet Robby could cover the hell out of the Quiddich scores.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am not a fan of the Reason Roundup.

    The news listed is day old news and the major media lies come out around noon each day.

    The AM/PM links at least gave some followups by the time PM links rolled around.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Go back to Bratfart then.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    She's never going to let you touch her hair.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What is Bratfart?

  • Ken Shultz||

    PB acting like he owns the place!

    LOL

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, plenty of people have told Butt to go fuck himself.

    He wants to tell others to go somewhere too.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Bring Ed back.

  • Brandybuck||

    ""Google has long promoted a work culture that is more like a college campus—where loud debates and doctrinaire stances are commonplace""

    Except 90% of Google employees vote Democrat. You can't have open discussions in a monoculture. The reason it's a monoculture is that for a long time the last step of the employment process was for general employees to meet the candidate and issue a veto if they felt the candidate was not a good fit for their "culture".

  • John||

    And people need to start sueing the shit out of them for religious discrimination. I bet you Google doesn't employ a single open Christian. Those sorts of "he didn't fit the culture" excuses have long been seen by courts as nothing but dog whistles for hiring based on prohibited practices. And that is what is going on here. The complete lack of openly Christians at the firm would create an ironclad disparate impact case against them.

  • jcw||

    I bet you Google doesn't employ a single open Christian

    The idea that you really do think this is such a great representation of your warped view of the world.

  • John||

    The idea that you think that it is such an outrageous statements shows what a bubble you live in. They fired the guy for daring to write a memo that said women and men might naturally not be equally interested in science. I am sure some openly evangelical Christian is going to get hired in such a place.

    What is it like to go through life with your head completely up your ass? Does reality ever intrude or are you just happier not facing it?

  • jcw||

    yes, I'm in a bubble where billion dollar tech companies are moving operations to utah and thousands of hard working mormons. Definitely christians are so worse off in this world than mormons, for sure.

    Ad hominem attacks are fine, but you know nothing about anything. Go continue writing your articles about the attack on white christian men.

  • John||

    We are talking about Google. Are they moving to Utah?Why don't you try talking about the subject at hand rather than trying to change it? Your responses would be a lot more sensible.

    Moreover, even if they did move some operations to Utah, that doesn't mean they are not guilty of discrimination. Ford Motor company hired a lot of black assembly line workers back in the day. That didn't make them enlightened on race. How many managers or top executives were black? Same thing here.

    I get it that you have a lot of your personal identity wrapped up in your politics and large part of that is believing that disfavored groups like Christians could ever be treated unfairly or not deserve much worse than they get. But, I don't live in your fantasy world and my sense of self worth doesn't depend on believing various fantasies. The truth is what it is. You should try facing it sometime.

  • jcw||

    Continue building strawmen for what I believe and what I think. Absolutely joke.

    You literally know nothing about the start ups in utah, so don't talk about it and try and compare it to ford. Just don't do it. Stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

    We are not talking about google. We are talking about your statement, which is that you think that there is literally ZERO open christians working for Google. How dumb is that and how dumb can you be? I don't know if we will ever hit bottom.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Hyperbole aside, John isn't the first person to suggest that working at Google can feel like hostile work environment to conservatives and Christians. This has been making headlines lately. Google itself seems to be concerned about their lack of intellectual diversity on issues that are important to Christians.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Hyperbole aside, John isn't the first person to suggest that working at Google can feel like hostile work environment to conservatives and Christians.


    I do believe the advice to someone that feels they're in a "hostile work environment" is "play along to get along or leave".

    Saying that Google having a "hostile work environment" is a problem when Enron's "hostile work environment" isn't doesn't really make me think ya'll are as principled as you claim.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't think that's the way Google feels about it. Especially when they're worried about demonetizing and censoring YouTube videos, etc. for running afoul of someone's personal political preferences.

    When does simple opposition to gay marriage turn into hate speech? There are plenty of people out there who think voicing any opposition to gay marriage is hate speech.

    Does arguing that the Second Amendment protects our right to own a gun so that we can rise up against the government when they violate our rights amount to advocating violence?

    There are plenty of people who think that goes way over the line--just like there are plenty of law blogs that will have such discussions in all academic earnestness.

    Google seems to think the problem is much bigger than just a hostile work environment. They seem to think the hostile work environment may be indicative of a larger problem. If I were the head of a media company and I saw that this was a problem, I'd be worried that may company was losing touch with 40%+ of not only our consumers--but the people who make content for our company, too.

    Little question in my mind but that Silicon Valley has a problem. And from what I've read, they seem to know they've got a problem, too--they're just not sure what to do about it.

  • John||

    You are right. I don't know anything about the start ups in Utah. That is why I am not talking about them. I am talking about Google. You keep bringing them up because you have lost the argument and think changing the subject is a way to change that fact. Well, it doesn't.

    And like everyone on here who uses the word strawman, you not only don't use it properly you use it while engaging in it yourself. You are the one creating the straw man, not me. I am talking about Google. You are just pretending I mean every corporation in the entire tech industry and then using the existence of companies in Utah to refute a point I never made. That is a straw man. And you are engaging in it. Stop projecting.

    At some point, this sort of buzz word sophistry and projection that people like you on here engage in gets very tiresome and boring. It has to get boring for you I would think. Don't you ever want to be smarter? Make better arguments? Know more? Don't you ever get tired of yelling Strawman!! and begging the question and believing bullshit all the time?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So they have open prayers at Google?

    Memos from openly Christian employees end with Amen?

    There a probably Christians that work there but not openly Christians like there are openly Hillary supporters.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I was offered a job, and may be going to work for them soon and I'm an open Catholic.

  • John||

    Did you tell them that? They can't ask you in the interview. So, i don't see how they could know you are unless it was obvious in some way. My advice to you is either totally cover it up or hang a crucifix in your cubical and take off the odd holy day. If anything bad happens to you, sue the shit out of them.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    They hired you just so they could fire you.

  • Eidde||

    That's great, I support legalization of same-sex marriage, I'm glad they let all those same-sex-married couples out of prison.

    Of course, I don't think the government should be recognizing or promoting same-sex marriage, but sure it should be legal to engage in the practice.

  • Eidde||

    The question is whether the respondents agree with "allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally."

    Sure, I'm in favor. That's because I don't think a practice needs the government's seal of approval to be legal.

    Overeating is legal (until the public-health activists get their way, at least), but government officials aren't going around giving toasts at every gluttonous feast (unless lobbyists are present).

  • John||

    Look, Eddie, every Libertarian knows that nothing in society exists unless the government says it does. If the government doesn't recognize gay marriage, it can't exist. That is the libertarian position; everything from the government. Didn't you know that?

  • Tony||

    What is the point of this anymore?

    It's not about endorsing a new institution, it's about recognizing equal protection under the law. Why is that so hard for you dumbfucks?

  • sarcasmic||

    Equal protection under the law would be civil unions for everyone. Because that was a completely and totally unacceptable solution, the logical conclusion is that it was about the word, not equal protection.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Seeing as over twenty states banned civil unions by constitutional amendment, and while courts can guarantee equal protection they can't create a new institution where it didn't exist?

    Yep.

    Face it, the only time conservatives got on board with "civil unions" was if they already lost on "equal marriage".

  • Eidde||

    Speaking of equal protection, the question asks about gay and lesbian *couples.* That sounds like discrimination against the polyamorous community.

    Your thoughts?

  • Tony||

    Nobody gay or straight is allowed to receive legal recognition for a poly marriage, so there's no equality problem is there?

  • Eidde||

    Had I contrived that question as a trap I couldn't have done better. You just used the argument which many reactionaries used against the government recognizing gay marriage: That gay people has as much right as straight people to enter an opposite-sex marriage.

  • Tony||

    Hasn't that dead horse suffered enough?

  • Eidde||

    I'm just suggesting that you've adopted, against the polys, the same argument which many people deployed against the LGBLTs.

  • Tony||

    Many people including libertarians who should know perfectly well that equal protection applies to individual people and not activities?

  • Eidde||

    You seem to be scoring "own goals" against your own position.

  • Tony||

    So you actually believe that gay people being permitted to marry people they by definition have no interest in marrying is equal protection under the law?

    Again I ask what is the point of this pathetic nonsense?

  • Eidde||

    I haven't used that type of argument, you have.

    You came closer to my view when you said equal protection "applies to individual people and not activities."

  • Tony||

    Also when I said only a fucking moron couldn't understand this, or something to that effect.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gay people do'nt get married. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Gay people get gay married or whatever its called today. Just like a guy does not get married to 5 women at the same time. He gets Mormon married or polygamy married.

  • Tony||

    No longer either de facto or de jure true, so what are you basing this claim on? Jeebus?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Thousands of years of history.

    Religion has nothing to do with the definition.

  • Tony||

    So you think American constitutional law should be based on what you erroneously think is "thousands of years of history" and not, you know, the constitution?

  • Eidde||

    Like someone said, "equal protection applies to individual people and not activities."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, you don't know nor like the Constitution and does not stop you from wanting government to murder all of us dissenters from your grand plan.

    Tony, do you know why the Constitution never mentions marriage?

  • Tony||

    It never mentions semiautomatic rifles either.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oh Tony, that is your weakest argument today by far.

    The 2nd Amendment says Arms: Machines guns, rifles, pistols, tanks, ships, planes, armor piercing ammo, explosives, grenades, swords, knives, nukes, and any other weapon that can be created.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Unconcerned.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony|5.2.18 @ 11:00AM|#
    What is the point of this anymore?
    "It's not about endorsing a new institution, it's about recognizing equal protection under the law forcing association as the nanny-state requires . Why is that so hard for you dumbfucks?"
  • LarryWilson||

    The only dumbfuck here is the one who thinks that buying a permit to be in a relationship equates to "equal protection under the law."

  • EscherEnigma||

    Seeing as that permit is what determines whether or not my husband can be forced to testify against me in court or not, I don't think it's as silly as you think.

  • Tony||

    Trump did a bald cap for a promo for his Comedy Central roast a few years back, and he looked fine! Like Daddy Warbucks. That's the look he should have adopted years ago rather than deal with Propecia and invest in that ridiculous thing on his head. Unfortunately he's completely insane.

  • sarcasmic||

    Majorities of most U.S. groups now support same-sex marriage.

    Support, or so fatigued that they just don't give a shit anymore?

  • Tony||

    Did we wear you down with our calls for being treated like full citizens, freedom lover?

  • sarcasmic||

    I got tired of the personal attacks.

  • John||

    Sadly, Tony won't leave you alone. He will keep hounding you and demanding your attention and submission.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    By hounding, you mean yelling at you and then having the government shoot you if you don't comply.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Our "friend" here Paul Krugman isn't a gay man in Oklahoma, he's a straight man in Princeton, New Jersey. He enjoys a mushy vagina almost as much as he enjoys a plateful of mushy peas.

    His wife ghost-writes his shitty-ass New York Times blog because he's too busy trolling us here under his ridiculous sock-puppet persona.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Do gay people FEELZ like full citizens now?

  • Tony||

    "I get to defend my basic rights with violence if necessary.
    Your basic rights are just womanly feelz."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So that's it huh? You gayz are defending your rights like Americans wants to defend their constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

    There must be some difference. You having a gun does not require government force to make sure I like it and associate with you.

    You being gay for some reason requires government to make sure I like it and associate with you.

  • Tony||

    We're talking about the basic constitutionally protected right to marry, nothing else. So stop conflating. Or take the painfully easy step of just not being a bigot.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The constitution never mentions marriage, Tony.

    You are making things up, as usual.

  • Eidde||

    Which political group is more likely to defend the right of a gay person to bear arms in defense against anti-gay hate crimes?

  • Tony||

    Gun fetishists defend guns, not gay people's equal rights.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, has gone off the rails again to demand we accept his gay constitutional rights.

    One thing the Founders Fathers were for was gay people using massive government to force others to associate with them.

  • Tony||

    I don't want to be the first to break this to you, but you don't in fact have a constitutional right to have certain types of people disperse at your mere presence. Gay people walk among you. You don't have a right to tell them to go away anymore than they do to you. God what frightened little pansies you people are. What use are you to civilization? At long last, what is the point of you? To sit and whine about everything until you die?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oh Tony, I don't want gay people to be treated badly. You are so dramatic.

    I don't want anyone (gay or whatever) telling me who I have to hang with and what to do.

    I would never bake a cake the government wanted to force me to do. I would burn the business to the ground before I did that.

    My life is to counter lefty nonsense like yours. Always and forever. You will never get your lies and socialist bullshit past me without a response. Never. Since I cannot be on Reason every day, there are plenty of other people that also slap down your nonsense.

  • Tony||

    You don't want to treat gay people badly, you'd just burn your business to the ground before serving them like normal human customers. Not that that was remotely the subject here.

    I've had to "associate" with heterosexual marriage my whole life, and you don't see me crying about it (much).

  • loveconstitution1789||

    See Tony, you are having trouble reading now too.

    Its the government threats of force (does not matter what kind of force it is) that would have me burn my business to the ground rather than see it used that way.

    I would still sue the government too for a violation of the 1 st Amendment to associate with whom I wish.

  • Tony||

    Quote the part of the 1st Amendment that refers to the freedom of association.

    Weren't you the one just bitching about the constitution not naming things?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You bitch about marriage all the time. You bitched about it so much, you supported government forcing others to marry people under threat of death.

  • Tony||

    That's a bit of an exaggeration.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Nah. Washington would have court-martialed me for sodomy.

  • Mickey Rat||

    You were full citizens, you just got the courts to make it a legsl principle that a tail was a leg.

  • sarcasmic||

    If government says a tail is a leg, then a tail is a leg. Argue and you might get shot.

  • Mark22||

    No, Americans just realized that there is no chance in hell that someone as unlikable as you will marry, so the debate is entirely academic.

  • colorblindkid||

    THE POPULAR VOTE IS IRRELEVANT. How many times do people have to say this. In a French-style 2-person popular vote election, there are plenty of reason to think Trump still would have won.

    Firstly, Gary Johnson got 4.5 million votes and Jill Stein got 1.5 million votes. It's likely if they weren't options, Gary would pick up at least a million more votes than Hillary would.

    California's new primary system meant most Californians had to choose between two Democrats for every down-ballot race, including the Senate race, which means Republicans had no reason to vote, and that could have been another million or so more votes for Trump.

    Democrats were (stupidly) convinced Texas and Georgia were in play, so hit those states heavy and drove Dem turnout, and Texas didn't have a Senate race, so Republicans stayed home, whereas the other big state New York had a Senate race.

    Most significant: House Republicans got 1.5 million more votes than Democrats, and a higher overall percentage than Hillary. The House election is far closer to a national popular vote than the Presidential election.

    Hillary spent tens of millions of dollars specifically trying to run up the popular vote in dark blue areas of dark blue states, so of course her vote numbers there were super high.

    Summary: Campaigns would have been run differently, and the electorate would be completely different.

  • Tony||

    He's still gonna have that asterisk. Next to the other one he gets when he gets booted from office.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There is no asterisk on election wins. You either win the EC or you don't. Hillary didn't.

  • Tony||

    The only winner of that election was Russia, and even they are having buyer's remorse.

    God knows Trump probably wishes he could go back in time.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The only winner of that election was Russia, and even they are having buyer's remorse.

    The second half of your statement contradicts the first.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump is one of the most popular presidents in decades.

    The only reason for trump to go back in time is to bang more prostitutes like Stormy Daniels.

  • Tony||

    Or the least popular president since the beginning of polling. Whatever. You are worse than useless.

    GOP leg humpers are in favor of every American pathology, and they do it just to be dicks.

  • LarryWilson||

    Of course they support it.

    They don't want to be the only miserable people.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Google has long promoted a work culture that is more like a college campus—where loud debates and doctrinaire stances are commonplace—and today its parent, Alphabet...is increasingly struggling to keep things under control.

    I'll tell you what, I saw a lot of the leaked forum post during the James Damore fracas, and what I took away is that working at Google is exactly like this. If I were young I don't think I'd touch this place with a fork if I were looking for a job.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    LEOMINSTER, Mass. -- A Massachusetts school district is waiting for its computer system to be "unlocked" after it paid a $10,000 Bitcoin ransom to hackers following a cyberattack on its system.

    HA! I knew it. When I read the headline, the first thing I thought was..."And they actually got their shit unlocked." Yeah, "waiting" to get it unlocked.

    Good luck with that.

  • Tony||

    So Trump leaked the questions then bitched about the leaking of the questions that he did. Is this the n-dimensional chess I've heard tell of?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some people get chess and people like you don't.

    You lefties are so easily distracted by shiny things that have Trump's fingerprints on them.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You know who else leaked stuff, then cried because stuff got leaked?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hillary's snuke?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    It was her snizz that did the leaking I think. The snuke was in the snizz.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    My 3 year old?

  • Citizen X - #6||

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I will probably live to see the day when a Chabad rabbi presides over same-sex marriages.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online