# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  The libertarian case against gay marriage

## jmdrake

Note that Justin Raimondo is openly gay.
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-gay-marriage/

The Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage
By Justin Raimondo  April 1, 2011

CC 2.0
CC 2.0

Opponents of same-sex marriage have marshaled all sorts of arguments to make their case, from the rather alarmist view that it would de-sanctify and ultimately destroy heterosexual marriage to the assertion that it would logically lead to polygamy and the downfall of Western civilization. None of these argumentsto my mind, at leastmake the least amount of sense, and they have all been singularly ineffective in beating back the rising tide of sentiment in favor of allowing same-sex couples the right to marry.

The problem with these arguments is that they are all rooted in religion or in some secular concept of morality alien to American culture in the 21st centurya culture that is characterized by relativism, impiety, and a preoccupation with other matters that make this issue less pressing than it otherwise might be. Yet there is an effective conservativeor rather libertariancase to be made against legalizing gay marriage, one that can be summarized by the old aphorism: be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

The imposition of a legal framework on the intricate web of relationships that have previously existed in the realm of freedomthat is, outside the law and entirely dependent on the trust and compliance of the individuals involvedwould not only be a setback for liberty but a disaster for those it supposedly benefits: gay people themselves.

Of course, we already have gay marriages. Just as heterosexual marriage, as an institution, preceded the invention of the state, so the homosexual version existed long before anyone thought to give it legal sanction. Extending the authority of the state into territory previously untouched by its tender ministrations, legalizing relationships that had developed and been found rewarding entirely without this imprimatur, would wreak havoc where harmony once prevailed. Imagine a relationship of some duration in which one partner, the breadwinner, had supported his or her partner without much thought about the economics of the matter: one had stayed home and tended the house, while the other had been in the workforce, bringing home the bacon. This division of labor had prevailed for many years, not requiring any written contract or threat of legal action to enforce its provisions.

Then, suddenly, they are legally marriedor, in certain states, considered married under the common law. This changes the relationship, and not for the better. For now the property of the breadwinner is not his or her own: half of it belongs to the stay-at-home. Before when they argued, money was never an issue: now, when the going gets rough, the threat of divorceand the specter of alimonyhangs over the relationship, and the mere possibility casts its dark shadow over what had once been a sunlit field.

If and when gay marriage comes to pass, its advocates will have a much harder time convincing their fellow homosexuals to exercise their right than they did in persuading the rest of the country to grant it. Thats because they have never explainedand never could explainwhy it would make sense for gays to entangle themselves in a regulatory web and risk getting into legal disputes over divorce, alimony, and the division of property.

Marriage evolved because of the existence of children: without them, the institution loses its biological, economic, and historical basis, its very reason for being. This is not to say childless couplesincluding gay couplesare any less worthy (or less married) than others. It means only that they are not bound by necessity to a mutual commitment involving the ongoing investment of considerable resources.

From two sets of given circumstances, two parallel traditions have evolved: one, centered around the rearing of children, is heterosexual marriage, the habits and rules of which have been recognized and formalized by the state. The reason for this recognition is simple: the welfare of the children, who must be protected from neglect and abuse.

The various childless unions and alternative relationships that are an increasing factor in modern society have evolved informally, with minimal state intervention. Rather than anchored by necessity, they are governed by the centrality of freedom.

The prospect of freedomnot only from traditional moral restraints but from legal burdens and responsibilitiesis part of what made homosexuality appealing in the early days of the gay-liberation movement. At any rate, societys lack of interest in formalizing the love lives of the nations homosexuals did not result in any decrease in homosexuality or make it any less visible. Indeed, if the experience of the past 30 years means anything, quite the opposite is the case. By superimposing the legal and social constraints of heterosexual marriage on gay relationships, we will succeed only in de-eroticizing them. Are gay marriage advocates trying to take the gayness out of homosexuality?

The gay-rights movement took its cues from the civil rights movement, modeling its grievances on those advanced by the moderate wing led by Dr. Martin Luther King and crafting a legislative agenda borrowed from the NAACP and allied organizations: the passage of anti-discrimination lawscovering housing, employment, and public accommodationsat the local and national level. Efforts to institutionalize gay marriage have followed this course, with equality as the goal.

But the civil rights paradigm never really fit: unlike most African-Americans, lesbians and gay men can render their minority status invisible. Furthermore, their economic status is not analogousindeed, there are studies that show gay men, at least, are economically better off on average than heterosexuals. They tend to be better educated, have better jobs, and these days are not at all what one could call an oppressed minority. According to GayAgenda.com, studies show that [gay] Americans are twice as likely to have graduated from college, twice as likely to have an individual income over $60,000 and twice as likely to have a household income of $250,000 or more.

Gays an oppressed minority group? I dont think so.

The gay-liberation movement started as a protest against state oppression. The earliest gay-rights organizations, such as the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis, sought to legalize homosexual activity, then illegal per se. The movement was radicalized in the 1960s over police harassment. A gay bar on New York Citys Christopher Street, known as the Stonewall, was the scene of a three-day riot provoked by a police raid. Tired of being subjected to continual assault by the boys in blue, gay people fought backand won. At the time, gay bars were under general attack from the New York State Liquor Authority, which pulled licenses as soon as a bars reputation as a gay gathering place became apparent. Activists of that era concentrated their fire on the issues that really mattered to the gay person in the street: the legalization of homosexual conduct and the protection of gay institutions.

As gay activists grew older, however, and began to channel their political energy into the Democratic Party, they entered a new and more moderate phase. Instead of celebrating their unique identity and history, they undertook the arid quest for equalitywhich meant, in practice, battling discrimination in employment and housing, a marginal issue for most gay peopleand finally taking up the crusade for gay marriage.

Instead of battling the state, they began to use the state against their perceived enemies. As it became fashionable and politically correct to be pro-gay, a propaganda campaign was undertaken in the public schools, epitomized by the infamous Rainbow Curriculum and the equally notorious tome for totsHeather Has Two Mommies. For liberals, who see the state not as Nietzsches cold monster but as a warm and caring therapist who is there to help, this was only natural. The Therapeutic State, after all, is meant to transform society into a liberal utopia where no one judges anyone and everyone listens to NPR.

These legislative efforts are largely educational: once enacted, anti-discrimination ordinances in housing, for example, are meant to show that the state is taking a side and indirectly teaching citizens a lessonthat its wrong to discriminate against gays. The reality on the ground, however, is a different matter: since theres no way to know if one is being discriminated against on account of ones presumed sexualityand since gays have the choice not to divulge that informationit is impossible to be sure if such discrimination has occurred, short of a No Gays Need Apply sign on the door. Moreover, landlords, even the bigots among them, are hardly upset when a couple of gays move in, fix up the place to look like something out of House & Garden, and pay the rent on time. The homosexual agenda of today has little relevance to the way gay people actually live their lives.

But the legislative agenda of the modern gay-rights movement is not meant to be useful to the gay person in the street: it is meant to garner support from heterosexual liberals and others with access to power. It is meant to assure the careers of aspiring gay politicos and boost the fortunes of the left wing of the Democratic Party. The gay-marriage campaign is the culmination of this distancing trend, the reductio ad absurdum of the civil rights paradigm.

The modern gay-rights movement is all about securing the symbols of societal acceptance. It is a defensive strategy, one that attempts to define homosexuals as an officially sanctioned victim group afflicted with an inherent disability, a disadvantage that must be compensated for legislatively. But if gay pride means anything, it means not wanting, needing, or seeking any sort of acceptance but self-acceptance. Marriage is a social institution designed by heterosexuals for heterosexuals: why should gay people settle for their cast-off hand-me-downs?

Justin Raimondo is editorial director of Antiwar.com and author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement.

----------


## Ronin Truth

An alternate libertarian case: Is it peaceful? Is it voluntary? Is it between two consenting adults? Then it's none of my business. Have at it. Carry on.

*Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (pdf)*

----------


## jmdrake

> An alternate libertarian case: Is it peaceful? Is it voluntary? Is it between two consenting adults? Then it's none of my business. Have at it. Carry on.
> 
> *Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (pdf)*


Right.  There's no reason for the state to ban or legitimize anybody's marriage.  And that applies to a lot of other consensual activities.

----------


## otherone

> Right.  There's no reason for the state to ban or _legitimize_ anybody's marriage.  And that applies to a lot of other consensual _activities_.


replace with 'recognize' and 'contracts'.

----------


## jmdrake

Bump

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Marriage evolved because of the existence of children: without them, the institution loses its biological, economic, and historical basis, its very reason for being. This is not to say childless couplesincluding gay couplesare any less worthy (or less married) than others. It means only that they are not bound by necessity to a mutual commitment involving the ongoing investment of considerable resources.


First of all, that's a total misunderstanding of marriage. Ppl don't just get married for kids. They also do it for relationship and economic resources, its easy to pool resources living together, and if you're going to do it, then it helps to have a "mutual commitment involving the ongoing investment of considerable resources," and they thus try to do it with someone that they'll want to be with 'forever.'

Second, this argument that they're being pulled into this crazy regulatory scheme. Okay. And? If they want to do it, then there's no harm to them. The only potential harm is that they're using our tax dollars for the courts/paperwork *when millions are already doing this.* That's not an argument against gay marriage, that's arbitrarily singling out gays for doing the same thing as others.

Finally, its important and relevant that a huge portion of the libertarians opposing gay marriage do so not on principled libertarian grounds, but due to their opposition to homosexual lifestyle. Notice how Justin Raimondo isn't arguing for getting rid of govt-marriage, he's trying to reach out to conservatives/moderates who only want to leave out same-sex marriage. He's selectively deciding when to complain about govt regulations and when not to. That's not libertarianism, that's just homophobia disguised as libertarianism. If you want to leave gays out of a program because you actually think gays are entitled to less than you, then you're arguing that you deserve something from the state that gay's don't deserve. And that's not libertarianism.

----------


## William Tell

> Finally, its important and relevant that a huge portion of the libertarians opposing gay marriage do so not on principled libertarian grounds, but due to their opposition to homosexual lifestyle. Notice how Justin Raimondo isn't arguing for getting rid of govt-marriage, he's trying to reach out to conservatives/moderates who only want to leave out same-sex marriage. He's selectively deciding when to complain about govt regulations and when not to. *That's not libertarianism, that's just homophobia* disguised as libertarianism. If you want to leave gays out of a program because you actually think gays are entitled to less than you, then you're arguing that you deserve something from the state that gay's don't deserve. And that's not libertarianism.


So Justin Raimondo is a homophobic homosexual, thanks for enlightening us.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> So Justin Raimondo is a homophobic homosexual, thanks for enlightening us.


Oh, so he's worse than a bigot, he's a sellout. He's calling for different rights for straights and gays, even though he's gay, because it helps his political goals. F*ck him. Thx for the info. Now I know to never, ever give a f*ck about Justin Raimondo.

----------


## phill4paul

Sorry, Raimondo. THIS is the correct approach...  End government regulation of marriage. Period.

----------


## Pericles

As an artificial construct fot purposes of the state, replace "marriage" with "defined household" and carry on. Make provision for any two adults to define themselves as a household with whatever benefits / rights seem appropriate.

----------


## William Tell

> F*ck him.


No thanks, I'm not into that crap.




> Now I know to never, ever give a f*ck about Justin Raimondo.


Make up your mind already.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Sorry, Raimondo. THIS is the correct approach...  End government regulation of marriage. Period.


Justin is a Rothbardian an-cap - he doesn't support state endorsement or regulation of any kind of marriage.

But like abortion, "gay marriage" - as distinct from just "marriage" - is one of those issues upon which there is deeper/wider division among libertarians relative to other issues (such as minimum wages or the War on Drugs). This - combined with the fact that Justin is gay himself (with the result that the issue strikes much "closer to home" for him than for most of the rest of us) - is why he focuses his opposition on "extending the franchise" of government-sponsored marriages (rather than on the existence of the franchise itself).

IOW: It shouldn't be taken as an indication that Raimondo approves of or supports state licensing of "straight" marriages. He does not. He is simply expressing his opposition to government-sponsored "gay" marriage in terms of the deleterious politicization of the "gay culture" of which he is a part. Given his perspective as a gay man, this does not at all seem an unreasonable approach for him to take.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Justin is a Rothbardian an-cap - he doesn't support state endorsement or regulation of any kind of marriage.
> 
> But like abortion, "gay marriage" - as distinct from just "marriage" - is one of those issues upon which there is deeper/wider division among libertarians relative to other issues (such as minimum wages or the War on Drugs). This - combined with the fact that Justin is gay himself (with the result that the issue strikes much "closer to home" for him than for most of the rest of us) - is why he focuses his opposition on "extending the franchise" of government-sponsored marriages (rather than on the existence of the franchise itself).
> 
> IOW: It shouldn't be taken as an indication that Raimondo approves of or supports state licensing of "straight" marriages. He does not. He is simply expressing his opposition to government-sponsored "gay" marriage in terms of the deleterious politicization of the "gay culture" of which he is a part. Given his perspective as a gay man, this does not at all seem an unreasonable approach for him to take.


But he purposely writes an article for homohpobic conservatives, misleading them into thinking that he supports marriage as a whole, he's still playing ball with the homophobes to benefit his own political career.. 99% of ppl don't know that libertarians want out of govt-marriage, so handing that article to someone implies that he's just against same-sex marriage. This was on purpose. Its like a politician using doulbespeak. $#@! Justin Raimondo.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> But he purposely writes an article for homohpobic conservatives, misleading them into thinking that he supports marriage as a whole, he's still playing ball with the homophobes to benefit his own political career.. 99% of ppl don't know that libertarians want out of govt-marriage, so handing that article to someone implies that he's just against same-sex marriage. This was on purpose. Its like a politician using doulbespeak. $#@! Justin Raimondo.


What do you think of Ron Paul?

----------


## maybemaybenot

> What do you think of Ron Paul?


He's like Thomas Jefferson. I admire him greatly, but he's a bigot, and I'm not a sheep in his flock. And he sure as hell doesn't deserve a statue. A statist who believes in basic human equality deserves a statue before a bigot does, because the only thing more evil than statism is class-based statism. THere was no liberty when there were slaves, and there is no liberty when your tax dollars subside an institution used to label gays as "others" and "inferior," and that's exactly what we have when legislatures play this game and categorize citizens. Its state-subsidized scarlet letters, and $#@! anyone who agrees with it. Equality is a necessary part of liberty. And I mean equal rights, I know there's a horde of sheep ready to call me a communist just for saying the government has to follow the constitution (and basic decency) and apply laws equally.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...he's a sellout.



Gays are actually selling out their rights by pushing for government privilege.

----------


## maybemaybenot

> Gays are actually selling out their rights by pushing for government privilege.


*Lol Its not govt privilege. This is whether to allow gays to get the same privilege as everyone else. You're arguing for govt privilege. You're saying one group gets to do it but not another group.*

Many ppl seek the rational benefits of marriage, like the status (its good for careers sometimes), for religious reasons (and ppl religiously believe they need a govt certificate), economic benefits. There are zoning regulations saying ppl have to be nuclear families. It is fundamentally unlibertarian to deny these benefits on the basis of homosexuality.* Government should get out of marriage, and stop creating these classes entirely. But in the meantime, fairness and justice clearly dictate that you give them the same benefits others get.*

I think its an absurd "ends justify the means" *illusion*, as if banning gay govt-marriage really brings us closer to banning government-marriage. *In the meantime, two women that love each other can't live in same neighborhood as a man and woman who love eachother, because of zoning regulations.* And a million other unequal injustices from not allowing gay ppl to get the the same status/benefits as others. This isn't a libertarian hypothetical, this is specifically whether or not to allow gays to use the program that straight ppl already use. This is like denying social security benefits based on race, then saying its great cuz we're slowly getting out of social security. Meanwhile, blacks pay for something and get nothing out of it.

----------


## euphemia

> *In the meantime, two women that love each other can't live in same neighborhood as a man and woman who love eachother, because of zoning regulations.*


Where does that happen?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> First of all, that's a total misunderstanding of marriage. Ppl don't just get married for kids. They also do it for relationship and economic resources, its easy to pool resources living together, and if you're going to do it, then it helps to have a "mutual commitment involving the ongoing investment of considerable resources," and they thus try to do it with someone that they'll want to be with 'forever.'


State involvement in marriage has generally been about family perpetuation (yes, the children).  All kinds of groups pool their resources (college students, roommates, extended families, communes, etc.), but they are obviously not married.  Other "resources" have never been viewed nearly as important as the resource of children and perpetuation of the family.







> Second, this argument that they're being pulled into this crazy regulatory scheme. Okay. And? If they want to do it, then there's no harm to them.


Every regulation means a gradual loss of freedom.  If you value freedom, then you see the harm.






> The only potential harm is that they're using our tax dollars for the courts/paperwork...


That harm is not "only" and "potential," but real, insidious, and exponential.





> *when millions are already doing this.*


That's privilege.  If you want to go-along-to-get-along, then so be it.  Don't however, criticize libertarians for being immoral and not taking the high ground, when you are do the exact same thing.  Your effort is less about the high ground, but just securing more money through marriage (tax breaks, benefits, etc.).  If you are really interested in equality and not privilege, then you would work to end state involvement in marriage.  If that is too tall an order, then just acknowledge it instead of criticizing people for the exact same government bootlicking you seek. 








> Finally, its important and relevant that a huge portion of the libertarians opposing gay marriage do so not on principled libertarian grounds, but due to their opposition to homosexual lifestyle.



Do you have a source or is this just your own brand of bigotry again?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> *Lol You're saying one group gets to do it but not another group.*


No, I did not.  Go ahead and do it, but it's a sellout, especially in the context of you pretending the take the moral high ground.  You simply seek the same money as everyone else (tax breaks, benefits, etc.).  So be it if that is your goal, but don't pretend you're taking the high ground.  You are seeking to sell your rights for privilege, something that heterosexuals sold long ago.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sorry, Raimondo. THIS is the correct approach...  End government regulation of marriage. Period.


BOOM!!  Headshot!   Thnx for sharing, I missed that one.  3 cheers to gunny for the rhetoric as well as the legislation.  ~applauds~

----------


## euphemia

> he's still playing ball with the homophobes to benefit his own political career.


You keep throwing out the term homophobes.  If you want to have credibility, maybe you should think about not making sweeping generalizations and being a little more consistent in your argument.

----------


## fr33

Get back to me when there's actual progress at getting the state out of marriage or a movement larger than Ron Paul supporters. Until then, I'll continue supporting legalizing gay marriage. A few of us in our little group want the state out of all marriages and most people never heard of such a concept.

----------


## phill4paul

> BOOM!!  Headshot!   Thnx for sharing, I missed that one.  3 cheers to gunny for the rhetoric as well as the legislation.  ~applauds~


  Glen's too damn good, too damn right, so after the Reps won the majority for the first time in forever they gerrymandered him out. I'll not vote this go around in N.C. except for Haughs.

----------


## green73

> Get back to me when there's actual progress at getting the state out of marriage or a movement larger than Ron Paul supporters. Until then, I'll continue supporting legalizing gay marriage. A few of us in our little group want the state out of all marriages and most people never heard of such a concept.


Wow. What a great guy you are, looking good to leftists while demeaning people who actually stand up for your supposed principles.

----------


## fr33

> Wow. What a great guy you are, looking good to leftists while demeaning people who actually stand up for your supposed principles.


Show me a bill that gets the government out of marriage. Meanwhile people like *Ron Paul* support DOMA and the Marriage Protection Act. Neither of those get the government out of marriage. They do the opposite. When touting "state's rights", you are not supporting getting government out of marriage. You are supporting the government defining marriage.

----------


## fr33

The whole "get govt out of marriage" argument is similar to how some people claim we can't get rid of warfare or welfare spending until we end the fed.

"To really stop this, we must end the fed first."

No, we have to end the injustice first. The fed will end when it's no longer needed to pay for the injustice. Ending the fed first will ensure a new central bank will be established to fund the root problems that some are willing to ignore. That has happened before.

Get the govt out of marriage? Who's going to do that? I guarantee you Rand is not going to campaign on that.

----------


## green73

> Show me a bill that gets the government out of marriage. Meanwhile people like *Ron Paul* support DOMA and the Marriage Protection Act. Neither of those get the government out of marriage. They do the opposite. When touting "state's rights", you are not supporting getting government out of marriage. You are supporting the government defining marriage.


Your silly enmity towards Ron Paul baffles me. As a statist (correct me if I'm wrong) you should support at least the decentralization of marriage.

----------


## fr33

> Your silly enmity towards Ron Paul baffles me. As a statist (correct me if I'm wrong) you should support at least the decentralization of marriage.


Calling me names does not answer my challenge nor solve the problem our movement faces. It is also inaccurate. You are calling me a statist for criticizing a statist. If getting the government out of marriage is what we want, and it is, then why has our standard bearer never even tried to do that? Rather why has he always done the opposite?

----------


## green73

> Calling me names does not answer my challenge nor solve the problem our movement faces. It is also inaccurate. You are calling me a statist for criticizing a statist. If getting the government out of marriage is what we want, and it is, then why has our standard bearer never even tried to do that. Rather why has he always done the opposite?


"Our standard bearer" as you say has alway been consistent in advocating for less centralization first and foremost. As an elected politician I think we should be damn grateful for how successful he was at advancing the philosophy of freedom. That he should be criticized for sometimes advocating policies that trended away from central government but weren't "libertarian enough" is laughable. 

Christ, the guy got $#@! from most the world for always voting no, and now he gets $#@! here too for what he did support?

----------


## Dianne

> An alternate libertarian case: Is it peaceful? Is it voluntary? Is it between two consenting adults? Then it's none of my business. Have at it. Carry on.
> 
> *Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (pdf)*


My thoughts, exactly.

----------


## ifthenwouldi

> to benefit his own political career


Yep, that sounds just like something that Mr. Raimondo would do. He definitely has a long history of such actions. In fact, I'll go right now and dig up a few articles about them. Maybe this newfangled site called Wikipedia can help me...



Update: Seems to support politicians as diverse ideologically as Buchanan, Nader, Kucinich, and Paul. Doesn't make sense if he's just trying to benefit his career that he would do that, but I'm sure there's a reason. I'll keep digging.


Update: Worked actively to pass a law in the 90's in California that would have reduced financial incentives for illegal immigration. Starting to think he's not a big fan of expansive government involvement, but surely I'm just falling for his tricks.


Update: Started working with Rothbard in the late 80's. Total sellout, for sure, right? Maybe?


Update: Good news! Turns out he joined the Libertarian Party back in the 70's and even ran for political office as a Libertarian, so the delusion runs deep. I'm now convinced he has been actively planning to exchange his political ideology for career advancement for decades!

----------


## Christian Liberty

If "gay marriage" were just a state-granted license, I wouldn't care whatsoever, either way, because it really doesn't matter.  But if "gay marriage" is also going to include forcing people to provide gay weddings under delusions of "equality", I will fight tooth and nail against them.

----------


## osan

That was pretty good.  I and surprised to see lucidity issuing from one who could so easily have chosen the path of whiny victim.

Nice job.

----------


## osan

> Sorry, Raimondo. THIS is the correct approach...  End government regulation of marriage. Period.



Hmmm... I expect the opinion in terms of basis, but injecting "God" into the argument runs problematic.  His conclusion, however, is on the money in terms of getting government out of marriage, regardless of underpinning reasons.

----------


## osan

> As an artificial construct fot purposes of the state, replace "marriage" with "defined household" and carry on. Make provision for any two adults to define themselves as a household with whatever benefits / rights seem appropriate.


Why only two?  Basis?

----------


## jmdrake

> No thanks, I'm not into that crap.
> 
> 
> Make up your mind already.


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to William Tell again._

I think our resident troll just had his head explode.  (No pun intended).  Basically he's calling Justin a gay uncle Tom for being pro liberty.  Ummmm....okay.

----------


## jmdrake

> But he purposely writes an article for homohpobic conservatives, misleading them into thinking that he supports marriage as a whole, he's still playing ball with the homophobes to benefit his own political career.. 99% of ppl don't know that libertarians want out of govt-marriage, so handing that article to someone implies that he's just against same-sex marriage. This was on purpose. Its like a politician using doulbespeak. $#@! Justin Raimondo.


Political career?  What political career?  His not a politician.  He's  writer.  His website is http://antiwar.com.  You should check it out sometime.  And if he just wanted to "play to his audience" he could and should have come out pro gay marriage as most people who have taken the "antiwar" banner are liberals like yourself.  You sound like the Al Sharpton's of the world who want to shout down every black person who says "Maybe we don't need affirmative action indefinitely" as being an "Uncle Tom".  (Misnomer because Uncle Tom was really a hero who stood up to slavery through non violent resistance but most people are too ignorant to know that.)

----------


## osan

> *Lol Its not govt privilege. This is whether to allow gays to get the same privilege as everyone else. You're arguing for govt privilege. You're saying one group gets to do it but not another group.*


I do not disagree.  Marriage, as currently constituted in law, is an obscenity.  However, if we are to have it, all must have equal access.

The imposition of the "one man, one woman, forever" specification is pretty lame _as a universal_.  I don't care if that is one's belief.  Have at it and be happy.  But leave others to their beliefs as well.  This is where the "religious right" goes so terribly wrong.  From the one side of their mouths they go on about "freedom", while from the other they would force their religious values upon others.  Denying ***** the same access to the vile state-issued marriage license is a good case in point.  There is nothing of the Golden Rule in this posture.  There is, IMO, nothing _CHRISTIAN_ in it.  It is, in fact, eminently un-Christian.  Live, let live, and pass no judgment lest ye art prepared to be judged.  _Nobody_ is prepared for judgment; we all have committed trespass in one form and degree or another, so some of us really do need to get off the high-horse and return to right-sized.  Is it not the Christian tenet that only God passes judgment?  If so, then STFU, MYOB, and work on YOUR daily living and leave others to do the same.

I do firmly believe that the fundamental psychology behind all this anti-***** sentiment is the fear that if one is not wildly railing for the gayboys to be drawn and quartered that it implies one is condoning the behavior.  This, of course, is utter nonsense, yet it is vastly prevalent so far as I can observe, in some classes such as Christians.  I also believe that in some cases people fear that if they are not going on endlessly, much less expressing tolerance, that others will suspect them of being gay.  This is all so "commies under the bed" and all it serves to accomplish is to divide us against ourselves and to waste resources that could be otherwise put to better purposes, like getting "government" back on a very short leash and eliminating police.

Leave the *****s to their devices.  If they are damnably wrong, do you doubt in the least that God will set them to rights in the end?

Sheesh.

----------


## jmdrake

> Show me a bill that gets the government out of marriage. Meanwhile people like *Ron Paul* support DOMA and the Marriage Protection Act. Neither of those get the government out of marriage. They do the opposite. When touting "state's rights", you are not supporting getting government out of marriage. You are supporting the government defining marriage.


Ron Paul is consistently supportive of states rights as he believes the Federal Government has a "reverse Midas touch".  (Everything it touches turns to crap).  Tell me this.  Do you support the Federal Government defining abortion rights?  How about the Federal Government defining drug laws?  How has that worked out exactly?  

As for bills to get the federal government out of marriage, in 2007 Ron Paul introduced a bill to abolish the IRS.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-...-resolution/23

What does that have to do with the federal government and marriage?  *EVERYTHING!*  One of the stickiest issues in marriage is the so called "tax benefit".  It's actually a penalty to some and a benefit to others.  If you and your spouse have similar incomes, quite likely for same sex couples, [b]it is a marriage penalty[b].  Get rid of the income tax and there is no need to file married, single or otherwise.  Also the fact that health insurance is tied to marriage is a result of income tax policy.  Employers, not individuals, get the tax write off so employers, not individuals, shop for plans.  If individuals were making that decision, insurance companies would be tripping over themselves to offer more flexible plans.  Look at the competition in cell phones where Sprint offers the "framily plan" where you can define your group cell phone plan however you like.  That would be true of insurance if not for federal government interference.  The other bigaboo is Social Security.  If it was replaced with private retirement accounts you would be able to leave the money to whoever you want regardless of whether that person was your "spouse".




> The whole "get govt out of marriage" argument is similar to how some people claim we can't get rid of warfare or welfare spending until we end the fed.


You've got it exactly backwards.  The whole "Let's make the states recognize gay marriage" is like saying "We should get rid of welfare.  But in the meantime illegal immigrants are not benefiting from it and that's not fair so let's expand it."  Or "Let's get rid of affirmative action.  But before we get rid of it, let's expand it to gay people."

----------


## jmdrake

> Why only two?  Basis?


Exactly!

----------


## jmdrake

> Hmmm... I expect the opinion in terms of basis, but injecting "God" into the argument runs problematic.  His conclusion, however, is on the money in terms of getting government out of marriage, regardless of underpinning reasons.


While I don't believe God should be written into legislation, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with using God in debating legislation.

----------


## fr33

> Ron Paul is consistently supportive of states rights as he believes the Federal Government has a "reverse Midas touch".  (Everything it touches turns to crap).  Tell me this.  Do you support the Federal Government defining abortion rights?  How about the Federal Government defining drug laws?  How has that worked out exactly?


 I live in a state that is more likely to enforce drug laws than the current federal government is. If Texas was the capital of the US there would be tanks in the streets of Washington state and Colorado and goons rounding up dispensary owners and customers. We can't even buy alcohol at certain hours of the day(light) and on certain days of the week. State tyranny isn't any different than national tyranny.




> As for bills to get the federal government out of marriage, in 2007 Ron Paul introduced a bill to abolish the IRS.
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-...-resolution/23
> 
> What does that have to do with the federal government and marriage?  *EVERYTHING!*  One of the stickiest issues in marriage is the so called "tax benefit".  It's actually a penalty to some and a benefit to others.  If you and your spouse have similar incomes, quite likely for same sex couples, [b]it is a marriage penalty[b].  Get rid of the income tax and there is no need to file married, single or otherwise.  Also the fact that health insurance is tied to marriage is a result of income tax policy.  Employers, not individuals, get the tax write off so employers, not individuals, shop for plans.  If individuals were making that decision, insurance companies would be tripping over themselves to offer more flexible plans.  Look at the competition in cell phones where Sprint offers the "framily plan" where you can define your group cell phone plan however you like.  That would be true of insurance if not for federal government interference.  The other bigaboo is Social Security.  If it was replaced with private retirement accounts you would be able to leave the money to whoever you want regardless of whether that person was your "spouse".


If we want the government out of marriage then let's stop pussy-footing around and say we want the government out of marriage rather than courting christians and avoiding saying that we want the government out of marriage. Until then, save me the propaganda of state's rights. This movement has helped elect people at the national and state level yet nobody elected seems to want the government out of marriage. When someone like Ron Paul proposes abolishing the IRS, the main reason anybody can understand it, is because they steal almost half of our income. As it is, marriages allow us to keep a portion of our income that the IRS would otherwise take. 




> You've got it exactly backwards.  The whole "Let's make the states recognize gay marriage" is like saying "We should get rid of welfare.  But in the meantime illegal immigrants are not benefiting from it and that's not fair so let's expand it."  Or "Let's get rid of affirmative action.  But before we get rid of it, let's expand it to gay people."


Illegal immigrants are benefiting from welfare so you're point is not very solid.

The truth is folks like you want to ban immigration until welfare is abolished, even though welfare won't be abolished. The majority of welfare goes to legal citizens and illegal immigrants are your scapegoat to blame it on. Legal citizens vote in favor of welfare and will continue to do so until you change their minds. The New Deal won, and even Republicans support it but continue to blame illegal immigrants. It's just like blaming the Fed while ignoring the fact that most people want the fed.

----------


## jmdrake

> I live in a state that is more likely to enforce drug laws than the current federal government is. If Texas was the capital of the US there would be tanks in the streets of Washington state and Colorado and goons rounding up dispensary owners and customers. We can't even buy alcohol at certain hours of the day(light) and on certain days of the week. State tyranny isn't any different than national tyranny.


I feel sorry for you.  But at least you have the option of moving to another state.  You also live in a state where one of the mayors of a major city is using "gay rights" as a fascist weapon against her Christian critics.  Should "gay rights" become federalized such oppression could spread.




> If we want the government out of marriage then let's stop pussy-footing around and say we want the government out of marriage rather than courting christians and avoiding saying that we want the government out of marriage.  Until then, save me the propaganda of state's rights.


Are you serious about repealing the income tax?  I am.  Are you serious about privatizing social security?  I am.  Those are the main reason why the federal government is entangled in marriage.




> This movement has helped elect people at the national and state level yet nobody elected seems to want the government out of marriage. When someone like Ron Paul proposes abolishing the IRS, the main reason anybody can understand it, is because they steal almost half of our income. As it is, marriages allow us to keep a portion of our income that the IRS would otherwise take.


Do you understand that for gays marriage will likely cause their income tax bills to *increase*?  No you must not.  

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-t...174620422.html
http://www.advocate.com/business/201...e-bigger-usual

Note the 2nd article I posted is from the "advocate" which is a pro gay magazine.  Even *they* understand that marriage might be particularly hard on gays when it comes to income taxes.  So why don't you hear more about this in the media?  Because the gay rights movement isn't really about helping gays.  




> Illegal immigrants are benefiting from welfare so you're point is not very solid.


And gays are getting married so your point is not very solid.  Illegal immigrants are not benefiting from welfare as much as they could be.  Their access to welfare could be expanded.  Should it be expanded in the interest of "fairness"?




> The truth is folks like you want to ban immigration until welfare is abolished, even though welfare won't be abolished.


Where did I say I wanted to ban immigration?    In fact where did I say I wanted to ban gay marriage?  I haven't.  When you have to make up an argument for your opponent then it shows you are losing the argument.  My point was, and is, that saying "We must expand the federal government role in marriage before we can roll it back" is like saying "We must expand welfare before we can roll it back."  Neither argument makes any sense.  Hey, if you want to push for gay marriage simply because on that issue you are liberal than just say it and be done with it.  If a black person who is otherwise pro liberty wants to support an increase in affirmative action he should just say it and be done with it.  Be yourself.  I'm not stopping you.

----------


## osan

> I feel sorry for you.  But at least you have the option of moving to another state.  You also live in a state where one of the mayors of a major city is using "gay rights" as a fascist weapon against her Christian critics.  Should "gay rights" become federalized such oppression could spread.


While true, this ignores the fact that nobody should have to move to another place for the sake of escaping tyranny.  And I mean this for all places on the planet.




> Are you serious about repealing the income tax?  I am.  Are you serious about privatizing social security?  I am.  Those are the main reason why the federal government is entangled in marriage.


If taxation == theft, theft == crime, and crime == intolerable, then all taxation should be eliminated.  To do otherwise = silent consent to crimes against oneself and all his fellows.

This is very simple, yet unbreakable logic.  The conclusion reached depends 100% upon the predication of the primary assumption: taxation = theft.  If taxation == theft, assuming the trivial cases that theft == crime and crime == intolerable (a no brainer?), then all taxation is intolerable as unforgivable sin against the Individuals.

To my eyes it is a staggering condemnation of the predilections of some men that in the face of so perfectly simple a syllogism they still arrive at the same wrong conclusions by way of either ignoring the brute force of the logic altogether, or through the attempt at mitigating the semantics of the conclusions to which it so forcefully points with glaring clarity by playing the "necessity" card (how will the roads be built, etc.)  Far worse still, is the fact that the rest tolerate this in any measure whatsoever.  The pox is less upon Themme than upon us, for we have the numbers by which to sweep Themme and their progeny into the void.  Yet, we lie back as pestilent whores, tolerating the bad breath, greasy skin, and flakey scalps of the ones who buy us with their bribes such that we inevitably become familiar and thereby comfortable with the waves of disgust that rise up in response to our betrayal of ourselves and thereby of the sacred gift of freedom bestowed upon us by God Himself.  We mock God and the goodness and propriety for which that concept stands.  We soil it with our corruption; the filth of our moral lassitude; our lust for that which is easy over that which is right.




> Do you understand that for gays marriage will likely cause their income tax bills to *increase*?  No you must not.


I have had literally hundreds of ***** acquaintances and several close friends.  While generally very intelligent people, politically speaking they are stoopid beyond all hope of salvation.  This is because for the most part they are weak.  They are literally ****, and I am serious when I say that it pains me to say it because they are not evil folk.  They are, however, hopelessly wed to their fear and the refusal to face certain facts of life.  This damns them to eternal conjugation with notions so patently and impossibly absurd that there is literally no hope to bring them around under the current environmental circumstances.  The ONLY thing that will bring some of them around, to my mind, is a reset event of sufficient enormity and threat to their immediate survival that the choice to change and live or remain inert and die pretty much on the spot faces them.  A meteor strike; a super volcanic eruption; massive earthquake; sufficient collapse of the national economy - these are the sorts of events to which I refer.  If the small ocean of ***** in Greenwich Village find themselves in the midst of, say, food riots when the grocery shelves go bare, they will no longer enjoy the luxuries of environmental support for their endlessly stupid political postures.  They will be faced with the choice to wise up NOW or die in the coming minutes.  I suspect many will be unwilling or otherwise unable to make the transition into the real world.  So be it.




> Note the 2nd article I posted is from the "advocate" which is a pro gay magazine.  Even *they* understand that marriage might be particularly hard on gays when it comes to income taxes.  So why don't you hear more about this in the media?  Because the gay rights movement isn't really about helping gays.


*****, like so many other subgroups, are to me rather infamous for cutting off their noses to spite their faces.  They appear loathe to think beyond the boundaries set by the ends of their cute little button-noses where their political notions are concerned.  They will demand this marriage nonsense, they will get it, and then they will take in not only up the butt, but in the neck where taxation is concerned, unless of course there is some special dispensation made in the tax code for the *****.  This is a possibility one should not brush off too casually.  Remember that there is a massive social engineering effort afoot.  The ultimate intentions behind it may be good or malicious.  The fact that there is a conspiracy at play cannot be denied; it is so in our faces that most appear incapable of seeing it... or unwilling.  There is an agenda on the table and it is no longer being held latent.  Regardless of the intentions behind the project, it is there, it is fact, and I believe that nearly any twist is possible when one considers how hopelessly fouled up the thinking becomes when the distortedly mutated notions of "equality" and "fairness" come into the mix.  I can readily envision an income tax exemption for the gays based on the view that they are "victims" and must be handled specially... "fairly" to make them "equal" with the evil white heterosexual male, which is in this view the greatest evil in the galaxy.  That way, the pansies get everything they think they want while the rest take it in the neck.




> And gays are getting married so your point is not very solid.  Illegal immigrants are not benefiting from welfare as much as they could be.  Their access to welfare could be expanded.  Should it be expanded in the interest of "fairness"?


Rather, _WILL_ it?  I suspect we all know the answer to that.  The Cloward-Piven strategy is alive and laboring at high-steam in the USA.

----------


## jmdrake

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again.

----------


## osan

> While I don't believe God should be written into legislation, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with using God in debating legislation.


I didn't say "wrong", I wrote "problematic".  The two are not the same in the least, especially in this context.  My parlance was intended to underscore the fact that the injection of "god" into the argumentation immediately turns hordes of people away from you.  There is no need to put God into the argument.  This fact is for me proof of God's benevolence and humility.  He gave us the means by which to arrive at the correct solutions to our troubles without _having to_ resort to references to Him.  Such references, while perhaps appreciated by the Great Engineer, are not necessary.  Given how hopelessly ignorant of stupid/stoopid so vast a multiplicity of folks appear to be, it is no wonder He made this provision.  Otherwise, we would have collapsed into extinction long ago.

Unlike so many others of the religious bent, I do not believe God stands before a mirror, staining it with spooge as he strops like a wild man to the strains of the praises heaped upon him by his human creation.  I mean no offense, but this image of God is to me endlessly unlikely.  I just do not see God as that small-minded that he mandates "worship me while I wanketh before mine mirror lest I consign thee all to eternal fire".  I mean... really?  To my way of seeing things, were anything to piss God off in royal fashion, would it not be this wholly irrational and somewhat obscene construction of what He wants of us?  I just do not get the "standard" view.

----------


## fr33

> increase[/b]?  No you must not.  
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-t...174620422.html
> http://www.advocate.com/business/201...e-bigger-usual
> 
> Note the 2nd article I posted is from the "advocate" which is a pro gay magazine.  Even *they* understand that marriage might be particularly hard on gays when it comes to income taxes.  So why don't you hear more about this in the media?  Because the gay rights movement isn't really about helping gays.


Do you realize that the first of those articles is referencing Obamacare as a reason for more taxes on couples both gay *and* straight? 

Nope, can't let those gays have marriage because Obamacare says it's bad. 

Both articles say IF couples meet a certain standard of income they might have to pay in more. But if they don't, then they don't. That is the case regardless of gay or straight. 

Don't like Obamacare? Fine. Let's get rid of it.

Don't like discrimination laws? Fine. Let's get rid of them.

Don't like the IRS, fine let's get rid of it.

Don't like marriages that you don't approve of. Get the $#@! out of people's families. It's none of your business. Even if the govt got out of marriage licensing (which they won't), you'd probably still be very worried about what the gays are doing in their personal lives. The bible commands you to be concerned about it. That's what it boils down to. 

Almost nobody gave a $#@! about govt licensed marriage before the gays got involved... except for the Mormons. What we have here is a mostly Protestant populace that wants to legislate how society lives and it's biting them in the ass. Deal with it. Gay marriage won't be stopped. It's obvious that it won't.

----------


## phill4paul

It seems that there is much focus on what federal benefits/penalties a marriage license brings. When gays ask for the equality of marriage they are not "cutting off their nose to spite their face." There are many, many benefits that marriage grants other than at a federal level. The combination of these benefits may outweigh, for them, any marriage penalties. Benefits such as medical that allow visitation if a partner is hospitalized and the ability to make medical decisions if the partner is unable to express their desires. Employment benefits such as shared health plans. Death benefits. Housing benefits. The list is quite extensive. "Tradition" marriage partners just automatically get these benefits. Sometimes they do not even realize the extent of what they receive through marriage.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you realize that the first of those articles is referencing Obamacare as a reason for more taxes on couples both gay *and* straight?


Fine.  Here's an article that talks about the marriage tax penalty without referencing Obamacare.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/...-will-cost-you

Here's the point.  If two people have disparate incomes they are helped by filing married.  If their incomes are the same they are hurt by filing as married.  Considering that people of the same gender are more likely to have similar incomes than people of different genders, marriage will likely be a tax penalty for most gay couples.




> Nope, can't let those gays have marriage because Obamacare says it's bad. 
> 
> Both articles say IF couples meet a certain standard of income they might have to pay in more. But if they don't, then they don't. That is the case regardless of gay or straight.


Umm....yeah.  But if you have any knowledge of income distribution you'll know that people of the same sex are more likely to fall into the category where their taxes go up.  You are trying to talk about something that you haven't researched.




> Don't like Obamacare? Fine. Let's get rid of it.


I agree.  That's what the rest of us are doing rather than focusing on gay marriage.




> Don't like discrimination laws? Fine. Let's get rid of them.


Fine by me.




> Don't like the IRS, fine let's get rid of it.


I agree.  That's what the rest of us are doing rather than focusing on gay marriage.




> Don't like marriages that you don't approve of. Get the $#@! out of people's families. It's none of your business. Even if the govt got out of marriage licensing (which they won't), you'd probably still be very worried about what the gays are doing in their personal lives. The bible commands you to be concerned about it. That's what it boils down to.


Guess what?  Those of us that you want to hate on so bad are the ones wanting to get the government out of people's families.  That's done by getting rid of the IRS, privatizing social security etc.  




> Almost nobody gave a $#@! about govt licensed marriage before the gays got involved... except for the Mormons.


Actually that's not true.  Marriage licenses began in the U.S. as a way to stop interracial marriage.  I think torchbeaer for pointing that out to me.  That's why I believe the answer to this whole mess is to get the government out.  But the first step is to get the federal government out.  And that's what most of us care about.  But for whatever reason you can't get over the fact that the government isn't getting enough taxes from gay people.




> What we have here is a mostly Protestant populace that wants to legislate how society lives and it's biting them in the ass. Deal with it. Gay marriage won't be stopped. It's obvious that it won't.


If  you're so confident about that, ten why are you wasting your time blabbering in this thread?  Yes I'm sure gays are going to fall for this Trojan horse.  The march towards bigger and bigger government is pretty near inevitable.  That doesn't mean I have to go along with it.

----------


## jmdrake

> It seems that there is much focus on what federal benefits/penalties a marriage license brings. When gays ask for the equality of marriage they are not "cutting off their nose to spite their face." There are many, many benefits that marriage grants other than at a federal level. The combination of these benefits may outweigh, for them, any marriage penalties. Benefits such as medical that allow visitation if a partner is hospitalized and the ability to make medical decisions if the partner is unable to express their desires. Employment benefits such as shared health plans. Death benefits. Housing benefits. The list is quite extensive. "Tradition" marriage partners just automatically get these benefits. Sometimes they do not even realize the extent of what they receive through marriage.
> 
> http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html


Most of those can be handled without the government involved at all.  In fact you're better of drawing up your own contracts than going along with supposed "marriage benefits".  Do you want your spouse to only get 30% of your estate?  Then go along with the "government benefit" instead of doing the sensible thing and drawing up a will.  "Ma roads!  Without the government I can't has ma roads!"

----------


## fr33

> *If  you're so confident about that, ten why are you wasting your time blabbering in this thread?*  Yes I'm sure gays are going to fall for this Trojan horse.  The march towards bigger and bigger government is pretty near inevitable.  That doesn't mean I have to go along with it.


To point out the futility of trying to end marriage licensing.

----------


## jmdrake

> To point out the futility of trying to end marriage licensing.


Like I said.  Getting the federal government out of marriage = getting rid of the IRS and privatizing social security.  Those are by far the two biggest federal impacts on marriage.  Last time I checked those were two major goals of the liberty movement.  They may be "futile" as you say, but they are worth fighting for.

----------

