Did Congress Just Attempt To Do Its Job?
Plus: The editors each consider a book they might secretly want to write one day.

In this week's The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie discuss the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act as well as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D–N.Y.) awful marijuana legalization bill.
2:07: The House passes the Respect for Marriage Act.
20:04: Schumer's marijuana legalization bill
36:18: Weekly Listener Question:
What's an idea for a book each of you have secretly wanted to write (can be on anything, politics or otherwise) but have never had the opportunity to or gotten around to, and why? (Bonus points if one of the ideas is "Declaration of Independents II: This Time, It's Anarchical")
Mentioned in this podcast:
"Christians Started the Wedding Wars," by Stephanie Slade
"Chuck Schumer's Doomed Marijuana Monstrosity Is Not a Serious Attempt To Repeal Pot Prohibition," by Jacob Sullum
"The Federal Ban on Medical Marijuana Was Not Lifted," by Jacob Sullum
"The Senate's Election Reform Bill Is Surprisingly Logical and Bipartisan," by Eric Boehm
"Unacknowledged Legislators Impeached," by Tim Cavanaugh
Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.
Today's sponsors:
- Tired of feeling like someone's always watching you on the internet? Maybe advertisers know a bit too much about you, or you're concerned about the privacy of your identity. Using incognito mode won't solve the problem either. IPVanish VPN is here to protect your right to privacy and help you stay anonymous online. IPVanish helps you safely browse the internet without exposing your private details to third parties, such as hackers, your ISP, or advertisers. You can use IPVanish on unlimited devices without sacrificing speed: your computers, tablets, phones…even devices like your Firestick when you're streaming media. When you use IPVanish, all of your data is encrypted. This means that your private details, passwords, communications, browsing history, and more will be completely shielded from falling into the wrong hands. Even your physical location will be hidden. IPVanish makes you virtually invisible online. It's that simple. Whether I'm at home or in public, I don't go online anymore without using IPVanish. IPVanish is offering an incredible 70 percent off their yearly plan for our listeners with a 30-day, money-back guarantee. That's just like getting 9 months for free. IPVanish is super easy to use. All you have to do is tap one button, and you're instantly protected. You won't even know it's on. Stop sharing with the world everything you watch, everything you search for, and everything you buy. Take your privacy back today with the brand rated 4.6/5 on Trustpilot. Go to IPVANISH.com/roundtable and use the promotional code ROUNDTABLE to claim your 70 percent savings.
- How well would you take care of your car if you had to keep the same one your entire life? That's how our brains work, so why don't we treat them that way? How we care for our minds affects how we experience life. So it's important to invest time and care into keeping them healthy. There are plenty of ways to support a healthy brain, like learning a new language or taking power naps. There's also BetterHelp online therapy. BetterHelp offers video, phone, and even live chat-only therapy sessions, so you don't have to see anyone on camera if you don't want to. It's much more affordable than in-person therapy. You can be matched with a therapist in under 48 hours. Our listeners get 10 percent off their first month at BetterHelp.com/roundtable.
Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Hunt Beaty
Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You know who else didn't have any respect for marriage?
Eva Gabor? Artie Shaw? Kim Kardashian?
Henry the Eight for sure.
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (bdu-03) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> https://smartpays11.pages.dev/
Henry VIII greatly respected marriage. He got married 6 times. But he did it _his_ way. If the woman was infertile he divorced her - or framed her for adultery, tortured confessions out of her friends and relatives, and executed her. If she died in childbirth, well, he needed a new wife. If she actually cheated on him, she had to die. If it turned out she was uglier than her portrait, he divorced her, but it's possible she found that a relief.
And the last one outlived him. HURRAY!
Johnny Carson?
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
Reading this article:>>>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Elizabeth Taylor? Elon Musk? Genghis Khan? "Waco Whacko" David Koresh? M. Scott Peck? MLK Jr.? Silly-boy Billy-Boy Clinton? The Great Whitish-Orangish Pumpkin-Father and Stormy Daniels? King David? ... I could go on... And on and on and on...
I think I may have misunderstood the question in its deep symbology. The real answer is every hetero bachelor. Those who have been married multiple times may be terrible at staying married, but they do keep trying, and that shows R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Nowadays only children respect marriage because it's in their own interest, those selfish...what's the opposite of bastard?
Those selfish legitimates!
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
.
Reading this article:>>>> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
"Unacknowledged Legislators Impeached," by Tim Cavanaugh
Goddamn you teasin-assed bitches. Waving that Tim Cavanaugh cat-nip in front of my eyes, makin' me think he's dropping grammatically correct bombs for Reason again.
When you read Cavanaugh, you better have a dictionary, thesaurus, encyclopedia and Google at the ready.
I only know dithyramb because I missed it on a 7th grade spelling bee.
That said, it's a wonderfully vivid description!
Did Congress Just Attempt To Do Its Job?
Depends. What's in it for them?
Except for polygamy, right? Marriage is the union of one woman with a penis and one lesbian.
Hrm...
I'm no expert, and it's more difficult then you'd think to look up the actual text of laws from the 1800s, but as I understand it the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act of 1862 and Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, the two federal laws that deal with bigamy/polygamy, are just about the territories.
Which is to say, while the Respect for Marriage Act would not, in and of itself, allow for legal polygamy anywhere, it would mean that if a state decided to do so, then that would be recognized by the federal government and other states.
Make of that what you will.
Sure is weird that only certainly people should be allowed to marry who they love, though.......
Securely orientation is set early or possibly before birth, so it's not changeable - You think you could change yours? - and is basic to our natures. A desire for multiple mates is not a similarly defining and unchangeable part of any of our natures and no one currently has a right to polygamy, so equal protection is not an issue. Of course you can challenge this in court if you'd like. Good luck.
Sexusl orientation
Ha ha.
u dum
Oh so when people said 'everybody should be able to marry who they love', they OBVIOUSLY weren't talking about those icky polygamists. Gross.
The issue with polygamy is not who can be married to whom, but how many marriages you can be in at the same time. Poly gamy = many marriages.
Not really. The only question is how many or at least which of these commitments must the State fulfill it's obligations to.
Meanwhile,
"Top Secret Service agents who tried to undermine former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony to the Jan. 6 committee have hired private lawyers and are refusing to cooperate with the investigation, members of the panel said over the weekend..."
And if there one thing we have learned is panel members never lie or misrepresent facts.
Wow. It's like they don't want to be targeted by a partisan witch hunt, or something.
The headline would be far more surprising if it said, "potentially hostile witnesses refuse to lawyer up, say it's all a misunderstanding which can be cleared up easily because the investigating committee is obviously made up of people of goodwill."
Not cooperating with a witchhunt... They must be witches!
The committee of course has relied completely on witnesses who are all GOP Trump appointees.
Tough talk here earlier of how the SS agents were smacking down Hutchinson's testimony, but for some reason they won't do it under oath, as she was.
They said that they would. They just don't want to for your kangaroo court committee that actually hugged the woman that they'll be testifying against.
Tell us how this was okay, Joe: https://twitter.com/greta/status/1542124333912424449
Would you go before a judge who does that to the witness you're calling a liar?
All they have to do is tell the truth. There is no judge. They can be deposed at their lawyers office if they want.
Man, you'll buy any sack of horse shit if it says Trump Farms on it.
Don't evade, shillboy. Explain why anyone in their right mind would attend a witch trial to contradict a "witness" that the Witchfinder General hugged after her testimony.
Steve Bannon's contempt of Congress ruling demonstrates that the junta isn't toothless like you're pretending.
Doofus, ignoring a lawful subpoena is not the same thing as lying under oath. What s stupid fuck. The option is to show up and tell the truth. The SS personnel are not under subpoena and can just show up and tell the truth under path. Of course, you can't handle the truth.
Their remarks can be, and are, edited before being presented publicly.
It’s a kangaroo court, so the witnesses should dress as kangaroos.
And they can get before a mic and say what they told the committee. They will have a big audience. Are you guys Russian bots?
In the meantime,
Democrats and their (R) cheerleaders seem to want yet another proxy war. Hmm. First Russia and now China. What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/taiwan-kicks-5-day-exercise-simulating-pla-attack-white-house-warns-pelosi-visit-could
A Chinese official has also been cited as saying that in China's view, the White House has the power to put a stop to it. "The US side has the ability to stop these clowns from performing in Taiwan," the official was cited in The Washington Post as saying. "Over and over, it chooses not to." Currently there is reported talk out of China, particularly in state media, of a military response as well.
On Monday, China's Foreign Ministry repeated in a public warning: "The Chinese side has made it clear to the U.S. on many occasions that it is firmly opposed to Speaker Pelosi's visit to Taiwan. We are fully prepared," foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian stated.
"If the US goes its own way, China will certainly take firm and forceful measures to safeguard its national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the United States should be held responsible for any serious consequences," the statement added.
Yes, if by "their job" you mean making America what it is today.
A shithole country?
Did Congress Just Attempt To Do Its Job?
Nothing more TeenReason libertarian than celebrating the enshrinement of social conventions into more federal laws...
Hey man, how else will they pretend to defend rights?
Yeah, Mother's Lament fails to recognize a law that restricts government, rather than one that restricts individual choices.
The Reason Panel failed to give credit where credit is due: to Trump. Reason has often had articles discussing the scheme whereby Congress writes a vague law telling the executive branch to write out the specifics of what they want the law to be, so they don't get the blame for the actual law. All the details that matter aren't in the legislative bill, and instead are written by the bureaucracy.
So why does Trump get credit for getting Congress to do its job? Because he used EOs to change the law towards free markets (e.g. his EO prohibiting Big Pharma from selling drugs at lower prices to foreign countries, than they sell them in the USA), which was exactly the opposite of what the statists in Congress wanted. They want more control over commerce, because then they can pick winners and losers, which causes rent-seeking rich people to be chosen a winner. Thus, they're actually writing the laws, and surprisingly one that limits government.
The Balance of Powers worked, when one branch of government decided to actually serve the people, rather than the political class ganging up to oppress the citizens and tax them as much as possible.
"Did Congress Just Attempt To Do Its Job?"
I guess, if its job is to cater to the feelz of a tiny portion of the population and satisfy their demand to be approved of.
Gay marriage is the least important issue in the country.
Gay marriage has majority support by a wide margin.
Show us on the doll where the gay marriage hurt you.
71%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-support-inches-new-high.aspx
You're making his point. Yes, 71% 'support' gay marriage, meaning it is hardly an issue in the country.
Congress is virtue signaling to a group that has been coddled to the nth degree nationally. Who really cares?
Why it's just another consequence of Gov-Gun social engineering.
But instead of repealing *all* Gov-Gun definitions of marriage (Rand Paul, "I don't want my marriage or my guns registered in Washington") and relinquishing their Gov-Gun Power in the people's PERSONAL LIFE'S they'll just pick a side.
And that is why [WE] mob democratic dictatorship doesn't work.... Which [WE] mob will be the tyrannical dictators? That is the entirely wrong idea; the idea is Individual Liberty (from Gov-Guns) and Justice for all (by Gov-Guns).
Listening to the segment on gay marriage is interesting. You have a general sense from the panel that "everyone supports gay marriage", "the polls show that Americans want gay marriage to be legal", its the right thing to do, who is it hurting after all, 1 man 1 woman is only for backwards deplorables, what principle should stop it? Then Nick says "well did the bill include polygamy"? Crickets.
So for the supporters of gay marriage, the question is: what is(are) the limiting principle(s) that make one man one woman obsolete/backwards/?immoral? but more than 2 people to be a bridge too far? Why redefine marriage as between 2 people of any type, but not allow 3 people of any type?
It's like you're prematurely opening the Christmas gift which the establishment is going to give you.
Don't be fooled by the smell, it's probably something tasty.