Stonewall 2015: The Night Marriage Equality Became The Law of the Land

Thousands celebrate around NYC dive bar where the American gay rights movement was born 46 years ago this weekend.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Stonewall 2015: The Night Marriage Equality Became The Law of the Land

HD Video Download

On Friday, the Supreme Court announced its 5-4 decision to strike down state bans on gay marriage as unconstitutional, making marriage equality the law of the land nationwide.

Reason TV once again reported from the jubilant scene around New York City's Stonewall Inn, the once-notorious gay dive bar widely recognized as the birthplace of the American gay rights movement, asking the celebrants what the moment means and what comes next.

About 2 minutes. 

Produced by Anthony L. Fisher.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this video, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.

Comments

[Pathogen]

Huh.. I figured it would've been the Blue Oyster bar..

[John Deere WC-12]

I wonder how many people are gonna get that reference.

[javabeast]

Yay!
All hail and celebrate the power of the state.

[Rayson]

you took the words right out of my mouth.

[John Deere WC-12]

Woohoo onward to the great purge and reeducation camps!

[Almanian - Wood Chipper-ish]

Love's got nothin' to do with it.

[lap83]

But now all that is good and sparkly is legal, whereas before we all lived in a gray dirty and hopeless world like a photo from Nazi Germany. Why do you hate love and rainbows?

[Dark Lord of the wood chipper]

"Why do you hate love and rainbows?"

Do be honest, there's just something about them that pisses me off.

[Lee G]

As Amash has pointed out, the goalpost shifting that inevitably comes after one of these civil rights advances will to be defined now and libertarians need to make themselves heard. While I think there is reason to celebrate, the real battle is over freedom of association and government non interference in private contracts.

[Homple]

Forget it. The free association horse left the barn and jumped aboard the good ship Civil Rights Act that sailed half a century ago.

[Tony]

Nobody has lost any freedoms.

[John Deere WC-12]

Talk to me in a year or so when Christian/Catholic churches, schools, etc. are being threatened with federal lawsuits for teaching traditional marriage or refusing to perform gay ceremonies. Or when the next round of lawsuits happen against bakers and photographers and any other business owner who doesn't want to participate in a gay ceremony.

Yeah, nobody lost any freedoms here. Not at all.

[Tony]

So gay people should remain unequal before the law because of stuff that might happen in the future. Which of your rights do you feel are similarly potentially threatening to the social order and should thus be revoked?

[John Deere WC-12]

You do realize that it's entirely possible to agree with the idea that gays should be able to legally marry and also completely and utterly disagree with the means by which it's been achieved, yes? Because this is nothing to be proud of.

And I'm not really talking about something that 'might' happen in the future, seeing as how such lawsuits have already been brought -- accompanied by media lynch mobs -- only now they will carry constitutional legitimacy.

We're in for a very bumpy ride here, and liberty for everyone who isn't enthusiastically on the gay bandwagon is going to find themselves in the crosshairs soon enough.

[Tony]

Perhaps you could find solace in the fact that your use of "lynching" and "crosshairs" are only metaphors. For historically oppressed minorities they weren't so metaphorical.

[Unable2Reason]

Freedom of association is where the next true battle for liberty lies. What little freedom of association remains is in a handful of religious exemptions peppered through various laws. But why do I need a god in order to decide who I want to associate with?

[Napoleon Bonoparte]

But now all that is good and sparkly is legal, whereas before we all lived in a gray dirty and hopeless world like a photo from Nazi Germany.

This is Berlin in 1936. Actually looks like an opulent, civilized country. The one depicted in the video for the article... not so much.

I suspect if both these videos were promotions from travel agencies, Nazi Germany, 1936 would be doing considerably brisker business that America, 2015.

[Rob Misek]

The APA lists gender dysphoria as a mental disorder.

The definition of a disorder is something that inhibits or interferes with a normal function or established system. Mating the pairing and joining of members of the opposite sex is our normal function and established system.

The genetics passed to the offspring of biological parents are important and meaningful. This is the only relationship that creates mothers fathers siblings and relatives. Family.

The agenda of the LGBT community is to make all this meaningless and indoctrinate our children with lies.

Next semester in all public schools in Ontario Canada the sex Ed curriculum is planned to change. The elected premier of Ontario is a lesbian and the author of the curriculum a convicted pedophile.

The children as young as seven will begin being taught about explicit homosexual activities and that there are six genders of which they are one.

I'm not making this up.

The LGBT group plans this for your children also.

It began with junk science propaganda and CHANGING a the established definition of marriage.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

[Princess Trigger]

From the Onion's timeline of gay rigthts:
http://www.theonion.com/graphi.....line-50771

July 26, 2015: The Supreme Court rules that bans against gay marriage are unconstitutional, backdating the decision to 1993 to spare the nation from embarrassment

June 18, 2025: United States' homosexual overlords sacrifice another 100,000 breeders to the flames

[The Tone Police]

oh dear god shut up already. It's one thing to win, it's another to lose your dignity through excessive celebration. It's unseemly.

Is there a more trite, cotton-candy saying than "Love Wins"? Grow up, Facebook Phreaks.

[AlmightyJB]

From what I could tell over the years, there is no such thing as too much signaling on facebook.

[The Tone Police]

Apparently not. It's never-ending over there. I like to come here as a safe haven from that nonsense only on this issue Reason likes to signal just as hard.

[Crusty Juggler]

TP, everyone at Reason is better than you, too. I have come to terms with this and I suggest you do the same.

[The Tone Police]

ha. We can be crusty outcasts together.

[Lee G]

It's not Reason per se, it's just that each of their writers feels a need to comment on it, even if it wasn't in their wheelhouse before.

I'm surprised Linnekin didn't tell everyone how gay marriage is just like raw milk.

[The Tone Police]

If every writer feels the need to spike the ball in the end zone, that's reflective of Reason as a whole.

[R C Dean]

And its the same mindset that fuels the unending proggy hate of their enemies, and desire to destroy them root and branch.

Its not enough, its never enough, to achieve legal equality. No, as we have seen, and will see plenty more of, the locust hordes demand the extermination of their enemies, that their businesses be closed, their jobs taken, their children seized, and the public square closed to them.

[Tony]

Homophobia has done quite a number on you.

[R C Dean]

Homophobia has done a number on who, Tony?

I've never had a problem with gay people, ever, in my life. I've never opposed them getting marriage licenses.

I am less than thrilled with the culture warriors seizing on the gay marriage issue to consume, like the locusts they are, another piece of civil society and liberty.

[Tony]

It is now clearly established in United States case law, and sober reflection, that there is no real reason to oppose marriage equality except bigotry. Slippery slope horseshit did not win the day, however convincing it may be to you and fundie toads on the supreme court.

No liberty has been seized. Liberty has only been expanded. You are just whining, like a little baby, that a certain Team won the day, even though they should have won because they were right.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Funny how your rights always involve stealing from my pocket. And if you want to trot out that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization" realize that that is no different than "traditional marriage is the foundation of our society."

[The Tone Police]

You know, I was hunting for the perfect word to describe this phenomenon, because "social signaling" didn't quite fit, because most true signals are honest and costly, and slacktivism (a portmanteau I hate) is cost-free.

The word is dramaturgy. That's what all this is.

[A special place in JW's Hell]

Agitprop.

I've turned off FB for a couple days, or at least until they run out of rainbow ink.

[Crusty Juggler]

Finally, gays can be as miserable as the rest of us.

[Crusty Juggler]

What does a gay horse like to eat?

Hayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

[AlmightyJB]

Oh snap

[Unable2Reason]

Two gay guys are in a house that catches on fire. Which one gets out first?

[gaoxiaen]

Is there a punch line?

[Unable2Reason]

Yes. But first I need to know if we are going to be able to tell gay jokes now? Hopefully, gay marriage has destroyed their oppressed status.

[Unable2Reason]

Also, what's the gay lumberjacks name?

[AlmightyJB]

Have any Mormons filed suit yet? This is serious question. I would think it's coming.

[Lee G]

Until not so long ago, non whites were not allowed to be true Mormons. I imagine that they will shift their views over time as the Prophets continue to receive revelations.

[AlmightyJB]

I doubt too many black people want to get on their spaceship anyways.

[Lee G]

Sorry, "they" meant the Mormon church

[Dark Lord of the wood chipper]

Well, to be fair, none of the brothers would well the full body underwear.

[Dark Lord of the wood chipper]

Well=wear

Don't know how the fuck that happened.

[The Tone Police]

Oh man, just like I predicted, now that this is over, the next bit of dramaturgy is going to be about transsexuals. Great.

[AlmightyJB]

IDK. maybe they'll go after BBQ. It's a sign of the south which of course makes it racist. And it's delicious which means you shouldn't be allowed to have it.

[Mr. Paulbotto]

And it's made of meat, which requires animal suffering and increases greenhouse gases...

[Mr. Paulbotto]

Oh, and I forgot to add, they can take my slow-smoked beef short ribs when they pry them from my cold dead fingers...

[See Double You]

On my Facebook feed, the witch hunt is on to find all those people and businesses who didn't celebrate as hard like all the right-thinking people did.

[John]

And meanwhile this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....5345896586

This might be the end of religious liberty. And the fucking Libertarians have largely cheered it on.

[See Double You]

Yes, religious freedom needs protection. But religious liberty doesn't mean the right to discriminate or to impose one's views on others.

Unless you're the ACLU or some other social justice jackass. Then you can impose your views all you want!

[See Double You]

And the essence of liberty, the quintessence of free association, is the ability to discriminate freely.

Fuck you, ACLU.

[R C Dean]

Yeah, they've proven to be a very cheap date. Suckered into taking the shortcut to what they want, through the courts rather than through the state legislatures, they have knowingly thrown onto the bonfire all sorts of things that you would have thought libertarians would have defended. But, gay marriage is more important than:

(1) Federalism.
(2) Freedom of association.
(3) Freedom of contract.
(4) Separation of powers and checks and balances.

It makes me wonder which culture war shiny object will next tempt them to throw dirt on the grave of the very structures that are supposed to limit government power.

And no, I don't want to hear "I didn't want all that. I oppose all that. Gay marriage doesn't necessarily entail all that damage to limited government". The path too many libertarians took did, in fact, entail all this other damage. They were warned, it was explained, and they went right on.

As is typical of their nominal enemies, the proggy/lefty locust hordes, culture war libertarians are quite prepared for other people to sacrifice so they can get their next shiny object.

[See Double You]

Not even equality of marriage, but equality of licensure. Something, mind you, that I support based on equal protection, but not if it destroys freedom of association and contract.

[R C Dean]

Think a moment about the terminology being used here:

Apparently, "marriage equality" has been achieved. The issue is closed, and the ladder has been pulled up. Bans on poly marriage etc. do not implicate marriage equality.

Gay marriage was always special pleading, wrapped up in the flag of equality and equal protection and all the rest. Bullshit. A pressure group wanted a pony, got its pony, and whatever principles it was arguing required it to get its pony are now on the ash-heap.

[See Double You]

Yes, exactly. I should rephrase to say SCOTUS unilaterally expanded what licensure covers to include gays, but certainly not everyone. The Court actually gave a big middle finger to all the unpopular groups out there, and to equality.

[Napoleon Bonoparte]

Expecting to gain your liberty from people who conflate it with equality is like buying your coke from someone who cuts it with Drano.

[Tony]

So gay people should have remained unequal before the law because rectifying such will result in a slippery slope to doom?

Perhaps we should have stopped at women voting. Or perhaps before? When should we have stopped advancing equality so as to avoid the inevitable contamination of our bodily fluids?

[R C Dean]

You're an illiterate idiot, Tony. Read my comment again:

Suckered into taking the shortcut to what they want, through the courts rather than through the state legislatures,

Many libertarians cheered on the shortcut, in spite of the structural damage it would do, and the resulting long-term damage to liberty generally.

Allowing gays to get marriage licenses? I'd vote for it. Allowing them to get marriage licenses a few years sooner as part of a package deal that caused structural damage with long-term harm? No, I wouldn't vote for that.

[Tony]

This is hardly the first the the supreme court interpreted law in a way that effected significant repercussions outside of pure democratic choice. I'm usually the one defending democracy against you guys. I'm not convinced you aren't simply grasping at excuses.

[Napoleon Bonoparte]

Perhaps we should have stopped at women voting.

Yes.

Or perhaps before?

Better still.

When should we have stopped advancing equality so as to avoid the inevitable contamination of our bodily fluids?

Right from the start. It's a fool's errand.

How do you like them apples?

[Tony]

Not terribly fond of them apples.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

No thief likes getting his hand slapped.

[Napoleon Bonoparte]

As is typical of their nominal enemies, the proggy/lefty locust hordes, culture war libertarians are quite prepared for other people to sacrifice so they can get their next shiny object.

Maybe that's because there are plenty of libertarians for whom libertarianism isn't so much of an ideology as it is an agenda.

[A special place in JW's Hell]

And no, I don't want to hear "I didn't want all that. I oppose all that. Gay marriage doesn't necessarily entail all that damage to limited government". The path too many libertarians took did, in fact, entail all this other damage. They were warned, it was explained, and they went right on.

What rights would you give up that have become too pesky in this modern world, RC?

The right to bear arms? Speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom from searches and seizures? Fair trials? Getting rid of any of those would smooth over the gears of gubmint and society.

You seem very ready to make rights means tested, so why stop with the homos getting hitched?

[A special place in JW's Hell]

You seem very ready to make rights means tested

Make that, ends tested. No homo.

[A special place in JW's Hell]

(1) Federalism.
(2) Freedom of association.
(3) Freedom of contract.
(4) Separation of powers and checks and balances.

1 - All but dead already
2 - Dead and buried long before yesterday
3 - Still has some life in it
4 - In the Roberts court? HA!

[gaoxiaen]

The Supreme Court always follows the diktat of the Libertarian Party, right?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"It's time for Congress to amend the RFRA so that it cannot be used as a defense for discrimination." - ACLU person

Sure, and while we're at it, maybe another amendment that RFRA can never be used to undermine military discipline (like in the turban case), or to justify drug use (as with the Rastas)...

Wait, I don't think that's what the ACLU has in mind.

OK, then, maybe a law that RFRA only protects non-Christian religions practiced by nonwhites, white women, and gay men. That should accomplish what they're seeking.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

How long before the ACLU takes this off of their Web site:

"Religious freedom is a fundamental human right that is guaranteed by the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment clauses.[1] It encompasses not only the right to believe (or not to believe), but also the right to express and to manifest religious beliefs. These rights are fundamental and should not be subject to political process and majority votes. Thus the ACLU, along with almost every religious and civil rights group in America that has taken a position on the subject, rejects the Supreme Court's notorious decision of Employment Division v. Smith. In Smith, Justice Scalia wrote that the accommodation of religion should be left "to the political process" where government officials and political majorities may abridge the rights of free exercise of religion.[2]...

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"[footnote 2] Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 890 (1990). The majority opinion was written by Justice Scalia and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and by justices White, Stevens, and Kennedy. The Court held that a neutral law of general applicability may constitutionally result in incidental restrictions on free exercise where there was no contention that the government intended to target religious activity with the law. (The ACLU filed an amicus brief before the Court arguing that the free-exercise right should prevail.) The national opposition to the Smith case and its reasoning was overwhelming. The ACLU joined with a broad coalition of religious and civil liberties groups, including People for the American Way, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptists' Ethics Religious Liberty Commission, and by many other groups to urge Congress to reinstitute the rule that religious freedom could be constrained solely if the government had a "compelling interest" in doing so. The Congress agreed overwhelmingly with the ACLU's position (that was rejected by Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, White, Stevens and Kennedy), and adopted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 unanimously in the House and by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate."

(from aclu.org)

http://ow.ly/OSlvC

[cfskyrim]

Based on this article and the comments:

Forcing someone to provide you with something against their will and at their expense = individual liberty.

Not providing something based upon your beliefs but not objecting to others doing so = totalitarian /racist/homophobe/misogynist/progressive buzzword.

Up is down, left is right, freedom is slavery, war is peace.

[AlmightyJB]

"And the fucking Libertarians have largely cheered it on."

Oh yeah, it's the fucking libertarians fault. Christian have what you would call a super majority in this country. If you guys don't have the fucking BALLS to stand up for yourselves don't come whining about libertarians who have not one fucking representative in Congress. Go whine over at Hot Air about it.

[John]

They will happily stand up. Just do me a favor, don't try and preen an stand up with them. Your help is not wanted. When it mattered you sold out and didn't give a shit. Worse, standing up will require balls and defending the rights of people you don't like. And that is not a good roll for most libertarians. Go back to talking about the drug war and uber and food trucks. Stay out of the fights that requires balls and a real spirit of subversives, because you are just not up to it.

[AlmightyJB]

That's total bullshit John, fueled by the same strawmen outlined in the dissent. I don't pretend to have all the answers but I prefer to error on the side of more liberty and more freedom for everyone. If indeed the 14th Amendment was properly applied here (and we can agree or disagree whether it was or was not and that's fine) that does not mean that the 1st Amendment is now null and void. Yeah, I'm an atheist but have no issue with Christians nor their right to practice their religion. It's my fundamental right to be an asshole as it is theirs. But they don't get to impose their shit on everybody else. I do and have here defended their right and mine to freedom of association and will continue to do so. If 70% - 80% of the population (Christians) can't defend itself from the ACLU that's not the fault of libertarians. Might as well blame Black Canadians. Quite frankly, I could give a shit about gay marriage. I also don't give a shit if gets conservatives panties all in a bunch.

[Tony]

That is a fucking good internet comment AlmightyJB.

[John Deere WC-12]

Who is imposing what on whom, here?

Are you going to care when the federal government starts to sue Christian organizations including schools and small business owners into non-existence for not embracing gay marriage? Because that's whats next here.

And yes, while 70%-80% of the population may be Christians, well over 90% of the media and pop culture apparatus as well as the vast majority of the federal bureaucracy are committed progressives, so 'defending itself' from the ACLU isn't quite as easy as you're making it out to be.

You may not care about gay marriage, but anyone who considers themselves a libertarian should care about the purges that are to come of this decision.

[blink]

After yesterdays ruling I am not quite sure of the full ramifications regarding acceptable social behavior. Maybe someone here can clarify things. I have a scene in my head that, if you will indulge me for a moment, has me perplexed.

EXT. PUBLIC PARK - DAY

Company X is having their annual summer company picnic. MR. SMITH's eight year old son, JIMMY, is frolicking about with JENNY, the daughter of a fellow employee.

MR. GREEN notices the children affectionately playing as children of that age often do.

MR. GREEN: You two seem to be having a lot of fun together.

BILLY: Yes!

BILLY, then in burst of pure delight, hugs JENNY.

MR. GREEN: Hey BILLY, is JENNY your girlfriend? Are you going to marry her when you get older?

MR. SMITH, who has been watching the whole seen unfold from a nearby picnic bench, lets out a slight chuckle at the sight of his son's now beet read face.

(Cont)

[blink]

(pardon the error above, the son's name is BILLY not JIMMY)

The whole scene will be replayed except their will be a change in one of the characters. JENNY will now be STEVE.

EXT. PUBLIC PARK - DAY

Company X is having their annual summer company picnic. MR. SMITH's eight year old son, BILLY, is frolicking about with STEVE, the son of a fellow employee.

MR. GREEN notices the children affectionately playing as children of that age often do.

MR. GREEN: You two seem to be having a lot of fun together.

BILLY: Yes!

BILLY, then in burst of pure delight, hugs JENNY.

MR. GREEN: Hey BILLY, is STEVE your boyfriend? Are you going to marry him when you get older?

MR. SMITH, who has been watching the whole seen unfold from a nearby picnic bench, violently thrust himself from the bench.

MR. SMITH: Piss off MR. SMITH! What kind of question if that?. Stay away from my son, you idiot!

[blink]

Dammit. Billy hugs STEVE not JENNY,

[Mr. Paulbotto]

No, Billy, don't do it! STEVE may say he only wants a hug, but...

[MSimon]

Good thing he didn't hug JOHN.

[AlmightyJB]

I think you fucked whole thing up but anyways, if Mr. Smith's first name is Steve everybody need to get the fuck out of there now.

[Unable2Reason]

Haven't you ever watched the movie "Boys Beware"? All your questions will be answered.

[blink]

Now, due to yesterday's ruling, is MR. SMITH a bigot? Should MR. SMITH have to undergo sensitivity training to keep his job? Or, if he is the CEO, should he be fired?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Mr. Smith should have to attend the Ned Flanders Re-Ned-Ucation Seminar, where he will have the opportunity to listen to the Indigo Girls while exercising to a Richard Simmons video.

[american socialist]

Hi Anthony,

Like you, I'm a libertarian so I celebrate this decision, which will fundamentally enhance the liberty of millions of same sex couples throughout the country. It's pretty funny to watch the bitching of all these retrograde asshole Republican right-wingers in the comments. Where did these people come from? Breitbart, probably.

[See Double You]

Hi American Substanceless,

Care to, you know, actually address the substantive points made by the detractors of this decision?

[american socialist]

You mean how this means that bigots won't be free to be bigoted? Don't worry I'm sure we'll still hear from Focus on the Family and that, from a fundraising perspective at least, this will be an example where the Lord will provide to these total bullshit charlatans.

[cfskyrim]

Uhm, how is this a win for liberty if one group is lifted up to special status and another group gets their right to discriminate taken away from them?

Taking one right to give another a right isn't exactly liberty you dumbfuck.

[Tony]

How the shit is gays getting the same rights as straights "special status"?

You are using code words but not especially adeptly. I thank you for being almost honest enough to say you think the social order should remain such that Christians get to keep oppressing gays, and that arrangement means freedom.

[cfskyrim]

Nope not at all but thanks for trying you retarded fuck.

I'm responding to Amsoc's assertion that people shouldn't be free to be bigoted. Not necessarily even talking about gays, just in general.

[cfskyrim]

Why the fuck did I even respond to Tony? cfskyrim you are a complete fucking moron!

[Tony]

People should be free to think whatever they want to think.

Bigotry is not benign, however, and if government wants to employ schools, messaging, and policy to counteract bigotry, that's just as legitimate as using resources to combat an epidemic of ebola. In the marketplace of ideas we should expect, sometimes, for winners and losers to emerge. There is no utility to bigotry, yet I support this country remaining free enough to harbor it nonetheless, even though it's a loser. We're generous like that.

[R C Dean]

That's big of you, Tony, to generously permit people to have ungoodful thoughts, as long as they don't act on them and fund a government which uses every club in its bag to beat the shit out of them via schools, messaging, and policy.

[Tony]

Surely you agree that government should prevent acting on certain thoughts.

[cfskyrim]

Absolutely not, I don't agree with this. You respond after an action but until an action happens, all thought and speech shall be protected.

[AlgerHiss]

"...Christians get to keep oppressing gays..."

Good grief, you sit there and whine about some imaginary harm coming from Pat Robertson or some such completely unimportant person, while you ignore "islam".

Have you lost all reason and balance in your life?

[Tony]

I have no use for religious fundamentalism of any kind. It's not however the Muslims trying to impose their religious beliefs on me where I live.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Great, so you're done wailing about Gaia's fever? Hate to break it to you, but both of your religions are still institutions of old, straight, white men.

[John Deere WC-12]

You do realize that under the law of the land, gays are a 'protected class' and thus have a 'special status', right?

So please explain to me why gays should have this 'special status'?

[R C Dean]

You mean how this means that bigots won't be free to be bigoted?

Of course, AmSoc sees the loss of freedom resulting from this decision as a plus, not a minus.

[cfskyrim]

Really? Only about 2.5% of the country is gay. Only 1.5% have any interest in same sex marriage.

Meanwhile:

-The Drug War goes on
-The military is deployed all over the world
-CPS can kidnap your kids with impunity
-Still killing kids in Pakistan
-Horribly corrupt gov't, to the point it can no longer be fixed
-Imprisoning people in ghettos through shitty central planning and over regulation
-Police brutality and immunity goes on

But fuck yea, the gays can get married! Shew, I sure am glad everything is gonna be fixed now.

[Brian]

The homosexuals are lucky, in that society has turned so much that they can make an equal rights case before the Supreme Court and acquire the constitutional right to marry whoever they want, which no state can take away.

For this reason, some progressives are quick to demonized state's rights. However, other victims aren't so lucky. The Supreme Court isn't likely to end the drug war, or the MIC, or the war power of the presidency, leaving everyone else to the mercy of the ballot box.

The drug war, for example will probably end in large part thanks to the states. With no federal avenue to pursue, states will probably go, one after the other, legalizing weed, and perhaps more, until a federal war on drugs becomes unworkable. In which case, we'll have our rights, and a much better society, because of the state's, not despite them.

I'm glad the homosexuals were able to carve out a win for themselves, as they are exceedingly rare. But, looking at the bigger picture, it just reminds me of the irrationality of the exercise in the first place. Victories like this shouldn't be rare, and no one seems to notice, as we stumble forward, hoping for another unlikely victory, not too far away. Perhaps our lifetime?

[american socialist]

Is it too much to tell these public officials who get their salary from the taxpayer that we don't give a fuck what they think about gay marriage and to do their fucking job no matter what Jeebus feelz. Or is sitting on your ass because you don't like the queers now enshrined in the 1st amendment?

[cfskyrim]

So you're saying that everyone must think just like you and not have any personal beliefs that are counter to yours.

Sure on principle they should still support SSM but are you kinda maybe sorta seeing just how shitty and what such bullshit democracy is?

Maybe kinda seeing through the facade a little bit?

I doubt it though.

[american socialist]

No, I'm saying that now that gay marriage is the law of the land, people that get their money from the taxpayer (which means you and me) should do their job. If they don't like to do things like marrying people because maybe 3 out of a hundred of those couples are a dude and a dude, then maybe they can get another job.

[cfskyrim]

Give me a break with the retarded "taxpayers" argument. There is no way you can sit here and tell me you believe that horseshit. Oh so in this one instance the right thing was done so lets just ignore the million other far more important things where you're told to go fuck yourself.

Why don't you try that taxpayer argument with your God about the drug war, imperialism, and global policing? Watch them laugh your dumbass right out of the room.

[cfskyrim]

Try it with legalized bribery...oops I meant lobbying. Try it with getting the FDA to allow new and better drugs to hit the market without them taking millions in bribes and years "studying" before they let it through.

Try it with any other argument that carries real substance and not the buzzwords of today.

You might find your God will go awfully silent.

[cfskyrim]

So because something's a law, people should obey it? People should be subservient to the law instead of law being subservient to them? People can't speak out about the law?

Ahhh good ole democracy. It's great as long as your side is winning.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

You pay taxes. That's a good one.

[Tony]

People are free to be small-minded idiots. Quite free. It's not something to celebrate though.

[blink]

People are free to be small-minded idiots

Unless they are being small-minded regarding whom they will do business with, right? As a grocery store owner you would not allow me to be small-minded. For instance, If I wanted to prohibit customers with a particular sexual orientation from shopping at my store, is this small-mindedness acceptable? How about if I refused to employ gays? Am I free to be small-minded in that regard?

[The Elite Elite]

Of course not. You are allowed to have wrong-thoughts (for now) but you must not act on them at all. Don't want to attend a same-sex wedding ceremony, bake a cake for one, provide flowers for one, or host one? Too bad, you're going to or you are a small-minded bigot who needs to be shunned and driven out of society.

[Tony]

Hence the distinction between thoughts and action. Welcome to words. Grocers, it may surprise you to know, are not permitted to act in any way they choose with impunity. Force is not simply defined as what chaps your personal hide. Force can be employed as discrimination, and it can be pernicious.

[sloopyinTEXAS]

Inaction is force now?

Is up also down? Is black also white? Is slavery also freedom?

[TimothyLane]

"Marriage equality" was just a liberal buzzword (they never used it when dealing with the issue of interracial marriage, for example). What was ordered yesterday by the new Webster was the redefinition of marriage, and it won't be long before effective dissent will become impossible (there are already numerous instances of businesses destroyed by the militant homosexualists here, and in other countries even disagreement is treated as a hate crime). Libertarians shouldn't be on the side of the libertinist suppression of religious liberty.

[AlgerHiss]

If it hasn't already, when the gay gene is found and easily tested for, it will be a hoot watching the "lgbt" crowd suddenly become Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

In fact, that transformation has already begun with the poly and adult-incest folks wanting in on the marriage party.

[Tony]

Are you bitching because you think government should endorse a "party" to which only straight people are invited? When you're not salivating at the prospect of eugenics?

Do I get to be a libertarian now? You guys accept so much diversity of thought.

[AlgerHiss]

No complaints from me!

I just want to watch the coming comedy of the "lgbt" crowd twisting themselves into pretzels that resemble the "moral majority".

[sloopyinTEXAS]

Nobody here sees the larger, larger picture: now that the gays have got theirs, they flock to a bar in NYC named after a Confederate slaveholding civil war general to celebrate their victory.

Shouldn't they be demanding that the proprietors of the place rename it

[Notorious G.K.C.]

The Rent-a-Mob is on its way.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Oops, the word "mob" was ill-chosen.

[sloopyinTEXAS]

My comment got cut off. Shit.

They should rename it Grant's or Burnside's. Not after some racist, slaveholding, hate-inspiring General of a bunch of reactionary traitors!

It's as if gay people hate blacks. Why do gay people hate blacks?

[Tony]

The bar was not named for Stonewall Jackson.

[sloopyinTEXAS]

Lighten up, Francis.

[Mauser]

I must admit I'm being quite entertained by the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the right...

[Acheron]

Here, here. Listening to Rush - who's been married four times - and figuratively hear his explode with this decision, has been an absolute pleasure.

[gaoxiaen]

I enjoyed his show the day after Clinton got re-elected.

[cassandra3]

Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com

[RoninX]

Libertarianism is about individual freedom. Yesterday's decision gives individuals the right to marry someone of the same sex. That's clearly a win for freedom.

Arguing that we have to restrict individual rights to prevent possible indirect future harm is the way liberals think. Arguing that we can't allow same-sex marriage because it could lead to violations of free association is like arguing for segregation and Jim Crow laws for the same reason.

Would you reverse Lawrence and allow the state to arrest people for sodomy? The Lawrence decision was clearly the first step along the current path. If you would reverse Lawrence, then I don't think you can call yourself a libertarian.

[Mauser]

I agree, yes there are concerns such as religious freedoms and states rights but if a person truly stands for freedom and let's be real here, this was an awesome victory for freedom, does it really matter how it came to be? Yes it would be nice to have had the states allow it but nevertheless it's a freedom that is now permissible across the land and freedom lovers should rejoice.

[mmmmm Woodchips]

Couldn't disagree more with this comment and the one above. Libertarians believe in the equal application of principles in maintaining individual freedom. Your line of thinking is terribly Utilirarian: We got the result we wanted, let's completely ignore the other implications.

The right opinion here would have been to define gay marriage and all marriage as a contract under freedom of association. This would allow gay marriage and polygamy and remove state interest in marriage altogether.

Without acknowledgement of freedom of association, now Christians are doomed to face irs challenges, discrimination suits and harsher public accomodation laws. Much of this I cured prior to the ruling. In response, some states will adopt absurdly convulated law to try to protect religous practice balanced against gay rights. This will create a yet more onerous legal framework to navigate for business owners. All of these ussues could be addressed through a strong affirmation of freedom of association by the Supreme Court.

This would of course destroy decades of judicial precedent and disrupt hundreds of laws which is one reason it will never be done.

Anyone who calls themselves a Libertarian and believes this is more than a very hallow victory needs to study John Locke, the first principle, the framer's intent, and Libertarian's aversion to Utilitarianism.

[mmmmm Woodchips]

*hollow

[RoninX]

Well, there are utilitarian arguments for and against SSM, but I'm not making one. I'm arguing that individuals have the right to choose whom to marry (assuming consenting adults), regardless of the results.

Of course, I would rather have a decision that gets government out of marriage completely. I'd also like five libertarian Supreme Court justices. And a Ferrari.

[Unable2Reason]

" Arguing that we can't allow same-sex marriage because it could lead to violations of free association..."

Seriously, you never heard of these:

http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/c.....heir-farm/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....98660.html

And that was before the SCOTUS decision. You think it's going to get better?

[Unable2Reason]

...and this:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/.....story.html

[RoninX]

I agree that the government shouldn't be involved in these cases. Business owners should be able to decide whom they want to do business with. But how does that justify a government ban on all gay people getting married?

[Unable2Reason]

"Business owners should be able to decide whom they want to do business with."

But they aren't. Most people don't give a hoot if gays are allowed to marry or not. What most of us have been discussing for the last 2 days is how the SCOTUS decision bodes for freedom of association going forward. The 3 cases that I listed (there are many, many more) all occurred before marriage became a "right". Most of the issues have been thoroughly covered above so no use wading through them again. Peoples' pairing decisions should not be inflicted on 3rd parties. Freedom of association is on life support. Come back in a year and it'll be dead.

[cesiletu]

Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

[ddonna30]

Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com