NY passes gay marriage

[cindy25]

breaking news on CNN.

will this have any effect on 2012?

[COpatriot]

Good for them. I used to be vehemently opposed to SSM, but my drift towards the Liberty Movement has very much changed that stance.

[BamaAla]

breaking news on CNN.

will this have any effect on 2012?

Doubtful.

[bill1971]

Great, now the USA ticked off God! Just kidding, great news!!

[YumYum]

"I believe fornication should only be between a man and a woman." :)

[Peace&Freedom]

It's not great news for liberty, though it is for social liberalism. Individuals already have right of contract to enter into any agreement they wish---but they are not entitled to legislatively force the rest of us to accept that sunrise is sunset, or immorality as sacred. NY just expanded government privileges to a another group, and thereby further asserted government jurisdiction over marriage, which is globally and traditionally understood to be a private religious rite. This is not a victory for individual liberty.

[Karsten]

Good for them! It's not the government's place to tell people who they can marry.
And for those who say "I oppose gay marriage because the government should be out of the marriage business altogether," then why don't you give up YOUR marriage licence! So long as marriage IS regulated by the government, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

[Karsten]

It's not great news for liberty, though it is for social liberalism. NY just expanded government privileges to a another group, and thereby further asserted government jurisdiction over marriage, which is globally and traditionally understood to be a private religious rite. This is not a victory for individual liberty.

The government banning gays from getting a marriage license is identical to if the government banned black people from getting a business license. Sure, we libertarians would like to do away with government licensing altogether, but so long as the government does license stuff, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

[YumYum]

but they are not entitled to legislatively force the rest of us to accept that sunrise is sunset, or immorality as sacred.

Not everyone is of the opinion that two guys playing footsies is immoral.

[ifthenwouldi]

So long as the government does license stuff, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

Slippery...slope.

I agree with Peace&Freedom (the concepts AND the poster).

[Brian4Liberty]

breaking news on CNN.

will this have any effect on 2012?

More marriages in NY?

[jmdrake]

More marriages in NY?

More business for NY divorce lawyers.

[ronpaulitician]

Next up: criminalize divorce.

[COpatriot]

It's not great news for liberty, though it is for social liberalism. Individuals already have right of contract to enter into any agreement they wish---but they are not entitled to legislatively force the rest of us to accept that sunrise is sunset, or immorality as sacred. NY just expanded government privileges to a another group, and thereby further asserted government jurisdiction over marriage, which is globally and traditionally understood to be a private religious rite. This is not a victory for individual liberty.

Any loss for the SoCons is a win in my book. They are the ones screaming "small government" and yet try to use the government as muscle to tell people how to live. Their tears are sweet candy.

There's no reason why the gays should be denied the right to be just as miserable as every other married person is.

[QueenB4Liberty]

The government banning gays from getting a marriage license is identical to if the government banned black people from getting a business license. Sure, we libertarians would like to do away with government licensing altogether, but so long as the government does license stuff, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

Exactly!

[Romulus]

Any loss for the SoCons is a win in my book. They are the ones screaming "small government" and yet try to use the government as muscle to tell people how to live. Their tears are sweet candy.

There's no reason why the gays should be denied the right to be just as miserable as every other married person is.

lmao!

[jmdrake]

On the one hand it means even more voters will want to keep things like social security which are already too tangled up in marriage. On the other hand it's a state issue so I could care less what NY does.

[jmdrake]

Not everyone is of the opinion that two guys playing footsies is immoral.

Not everyone isn't of the opinion either. Peace&Freedom was making the valid point that marriage as it is currently defined isn't just a contract between two people. It's a contract between two people and the rest of society. The way to make gay marriage / polygomy / polyamory / marrying your sheep a non issue is to disentangle government from marriage period by redefining benefits to not be tied to marriage. Social security for example. If it was privatized you'd have your own pot of money you could leave to some homeless guy you never met if you wanted to. Why should your money be allocated based on who you sleep with?

[Brian4Liberty]

More business for NY divorce lawyers.

And license fees for the government coming and going...

[Danke]

Any loss for the SoCons is a win in my book. They are the ones screaming "small government" and yet try to use the government as muscle to tell people how to live. Their tears are sweet candy.

There's no reason why the gays should be denied the right to be just as miserable as every other married person is.

Yes there is. Singles get the shaft once again.

[emazur]

Good for them! It's not the government's place to tell people who they can marry.
And for those who say "I oppose gay marriage because the government should be out of the marriage business altogether," then why don't you give up YOUR marriage licence! So long as marriage IS regulated by the government, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

Another thing you'll almost NEVER hear them call for is the nullifying of existing benefits for married straights.

[Zap!]

NY sucks, it's a socialist state with no freedom for anyone, unless you happen to be in an alternate marriage. Only in a rouge state can you be denied your Constitutional right to buy a gun without restrictions, yet legally marry with no problem if you're both the same sex. The state legislature can go to Hell. Seeing people support this here makes me want to seriously reconsider any connections to libertarians. The Constitution Party would never tolerate this.

[james1906]

Maybe NY read that liberty report that put them firmly in last place as least free state.

[Zap!]

Maybe NY read that liberty report that put them firmly in last place as least free state.

Ok great, so now will they allow law abiding citizens to carry legally?

[james1906]

Ok great, so now will they allow law abiding citizens to carry legally?

Yes, but you have to go to Vermont

[Zap!]

Yes, but you have to go to Vermont

I prefer Utah, best of both worlds, except they frown upon alcohol. :(

[james1906]

I prefer Utah, best of both worlds, except they frown upon alcohol. :(

Utah frowns upon everything except for Jello

[nbhadja]

Great news. I will love seeing the ignorant religious right squirm at granting others freedom. What a bunch of hypocrites. Hope it hurts the right a lot. They deserve it. Now if they marijuana bill can pass it might fill up the hospitals with heart attack victims.

[libertarian4321]

It's not great news for liberty, though it is for social liberalism. Individuals already have right of contract to enter into any agreement they wish---but they are not entitled to legislatively force the rest of us to accept that sunrise is sunset, or immorality as sacred. NY just expanded government privileges to a another group, and thereby further asserted government jurisdiction over marriage, which is globally and traditionally understood to be a private religious rite. This is not a victory for individual liberty.

I'm not in favor of government getting into the marriage business, but if it insists on doing so, it should treat everyone equally, so while this may not be a victory for individual liberty, it is a victory for fairness.

[Ricky201]

Yah...because that is exactly what New York needs...more divorce lawyers. Marriage licenses are about as attractive to me as a colonoscopy. No thanks, and I'm not changing my mind when I turn 50 for either one of those things!

[NYgs23]

The government banning gays from getting a marriage license is identical to if the government banned black people from getting a business license.

Not exactly. Not having a business license prevents you from exercising a natural right you should be free to exercise anyway. Not having a marriage license doesn't keep you from exercising any natural right; it only keeps you from special government privileges that shouldn't exist at all. It's more like banning some groups of people from receiving welfare benefits.

[Agorism]

Yes there is. Singles get the shaft once again.

This.

And polygamists too

[NYgs23]

I'm not in favor of government getting into the marriage business, but if it insists on doing so, it should treat everyone equally, so while this may not be a victory for individual liberty, it is a victory for fairness.

Marriage licenses are inherently exclusionary and "unfair." That's the whole purpose of the them: social engineering. To make it truly "fair" would mean simply handing licenses to anyone that wanted them, no questions asked. They could just print them off a website, as many as they wanted, and fill them out themselves. But then who would want them? The only reason gays want them (other than the special goodies that could be had through civil unions) is for the status symbol of the government "officializing" their relationship. It's a political ploy for the purpose of assimilation.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm really amazed every time I see so-called "libertarians" cheering more government involvement in social matters.

This forum is bizzarro-world sometimes. State sanctioned gay marriage is not libertarian. It is the opposite direction of where we need to go.

[silentshout]

Good for NY!

[Sola_Fide]

Good for NY!

You see what I'm saying? ^^^

[JohnEngland]

Alternative headline: "New York declares that the Earth is flat"

The union between a man and woman is intrinsically different to that of a man and a man. For the government to decree the two "equal" shows the extent to which government is out of control.

Government is there to protect liberty and the natural law upon which liberty is founded - not to reshape the world in their image, like declaring the Earth to be flat.

[BamaAla]

Not exactly. Not having a business license prevents you from exercising a natural right you should be free to exercise anyway. Not having a marriage license doesn't keep you from exercising any natural right; it only keeps you from special government privileges that shouldn't exist at all. It's more like banning some groups of people from receiving welfare benefits.


Marriage licenses are inherently exclusionary and "unfair." That's the whole purpose of the them: social engineering. To make it truly "fair" would mean simply handing licenses to anyone that wanted them, no questions asked. They could just print them off a website, as many as they wanted, and fill them out themselves. But then who would want them? The only reason gays want them (other than the special goodies that could be had through civil unions) is for the status symbol of the government "officializing" their relationship. It's a political ploy for the purpose of assimilation.

Couldn't agree any more. This doesn't make anything "fair" or achieve any "equal rights." It's simply .ny.gov throwing peanuts to a group of people in hopes of shoring up their voting support.


I'm really amazed every time I see so-called "libertarians" cheering more government involvement in social matters.

This forum is bizzarro-world sometimes. State sanctioned gay marriage is not libertarian. It is the opposite direction of where we need to go.

A great many people in this movement are so anti-religion that they will cheer for anything that "sticks it to" the faithful. I'm not a religious man, but I am forced to hang my head from time to time at the seething hate that some here show toward anything concerning faith or religious conviction.

[Brett85]

Any loss for the SoCons is a win in my book. They are the ones screaming "small government" and yet try to use the government as muscle to tell people how to live. Their tears are sweet candy.

Stopping the government from expanding marriage has nothing to do with "telling people how to live." Gays already have the right to live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live. But expanding government benefits is not a libertarian point of view. It's the liberals who support big government on this issue.

[Brett85]

This.

And polygamists too

Not to mention those who love animals and NAMBLA types.

[Brett85]

NY sucks, it's a socialist state with no freedom for anyone, unless you happen to be in an alternate marriage. Only in a rouge state can you be denied your Constitutional right to buy a gun without restrictions, yet legally marry with no problem if you're both the same sex. The state legislature can go to Hell. Seeing people support this here makes me want to seriously reconsider any connections to libertarians. The Constitution Party would never tolerate this.

Yep, not to mention that New York City won't allow you to eat salt at restaurants or allow you to smoke anywhere but your own house. But they're now a "libertarian" state since they support government benefits for gays.

[LibertyEagle]

It's not great news for liberty, though it is for social liberalism. Individuals already have right of contract to enter into any agreement they wish---but they are not entitled to legislatively force the rest of us to accept that sunrise is sunset, or immorality as sacred. NY just expanded government privileges to a another group, and thereby further asserted government jurisdiction over marriage, which is globally and traditionally understood to be a private religious rite. This is not a victory for individual liberty.

Quoted for truth.

I owe you +rep.

[LibertyEagle]

Good for them. I used to be vehemently opposed to SSM, but my drift towards the Liberty Movement has very much changed that stance.

Huh?

Liberty does not equate to liberal.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Stopping the government from expanding marriage has nothing to do with "telling people how to live." Gays already have the right to live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live. But expanding government benefits is not a libertarian point of view. It's the liberals who support big government on this issue.

Be honest.

How large is the movement for ending marriage benefits.

Stopping gay marriage does nothing but keep benefits and tax cuts for a special interest group.

The libertarian point of view is as follows:

Government should not be involved with marriage. If it is to be involved, it is not to be discriminatory.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Huh?

Liberty does not equate to liberal.

Liberty does not equal keeping benefits and tax cuts exclusive to a special interest group.

[LibertyEagle]

Liberty does not equal keeping benefits and tax cuts exclusive to a special interest group.

Then argue to get rid of that; not argue for more government.


Be honest.

How large is the movement for ending marriage benefits.

Stopping gay marriage does nothing but keep benefits and tax cuts for a special interest group.

The libertarian point of view is as follows:

Government should not be involved with marriage. If it is to be involved, it is not to be discriminatory.

How does your stance differ from the Social Conservatives who are willing to increase the size of the federal government to have something done at the federal level for expediency's sake, rather than left up to the states and the people?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Then argue to get rid of that; not argue for more government.

I don't think many here would argue against getting rid of marriage benefits writ large. As it stands, stopping gay marriage does nothing but keep benefits and tax cuts exclusive for a special interest group.

If the government is to be involved in marriage, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

[LibertyEagle]

You are arguing for more government. As long as you understand that, ok.

[ronpaulitician]

The union between a man and woman is intrinsically different to that of a man and a man.
I take it the only time you have sex is with the specific purpose to procreate, and believe a man and a woman who adopt a child are intrinsically different to a man and a woman who give birth to a child.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't think many here would argue against getting rid of marriage benefits writ large. As it stands, stopping gay marriage does nothing but keep benefits and tax cuts exclusive for a special interest group.

If the government is to be involved in marriage, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

Government is discriminatory. That is what government does...it discriminates based on greed and political expedience. That is why there needs to be less involvement in everything, including marriage.


Where have people's libertarianism gone? I'll tell you where it has gone: it has been sacrificed at the altar of secularism. You hate the Lord so much that, just like with public schools teaching evolution only, you will accept the socialization because you love the idol of your own mind --secularism.

This is why it is very plain to see that secularists cannot be principled libertarians.

[Don Lapre]

Anyone who thinks state sanctioning of fruit marriage is advancement of society in any way, shape, or form - is mentally ill.

[inibo]

Yawn.

[inibo]

This is why it is very plain to see that secularists cannot be principled libertarians.

Who made you the gatekeeper?

[jmdrake]

Liberty does not equal keeping benefits and tax cuts exclusive to a special interest group.


I don't think many here would argue against getting rid of marriage benefits writ large. As it stands, stopping gay marriage does nothing but keep benefits and tax cuts exclusive for a special interest group.

If the government is to be involved in marriage, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

This new policy is just as discriminatory as the old using your arguments. After all polygamist (Biblically sanction) get thrown in prison while sodomists get a benefit. Where is the "fairness" in that?

[inibo]

Anyone who thinks state sanctioning of fruit marriage is advancement of society in any way, shape, or form - is mentally ill.

If I want to marry and apple or an orange how does that injure you?

[amy31416]

If I want to marry and apple or an orange how does that injure you?

Doesn't injure me, but I feel bad for the orange after the relationship is consummated. :p

[Brett85]

Government should not be involved with marriage. If it is to be involved, it is not to be discriminatory.

Then you shouldn't want the government to discriminate against polygamists, animal lovers, NAMBLA types, etc.

[Brett85]

Liberty does not equal keeping benefits and tax cuts exclusive to a special interest group.

Just get rid of the income tax, and the tax issue would be solved.

[Cowlesy]

I live in NYC and have many gay friends some of which are Republicans, Conservatives or Libertarians. The thing about 99% of them is, their sexual orientation is a *personal* issue, not a *political* issue. I can say that many of them quietly supported the bill, and at least for the libertarians and conservatives, it caused me a bit of annoyance because they are advocating big government, and in support of my point about it being a personal issue, do not support gay-rights issues (social engineering of the left). However, they would argue to me, that all they wanted was equality under the law.

And even being a right-wing nut-job, I understand that. I very much oppose egalitarianism, except when it comes to treatment under the law.

What people should be mindful of, is that it was the left-wing, almost militant, homosexual agenda that is hard-line egalitarian and socialist that ultimately pushed this bill through. They have a strong hate for traditionalists or conservatives, and will only tolerate Republicans to the extent that they shut-up, or support their Agenda. They constantly push for education about homosexuality in school, demand protected class status and are skilled in playing the victim card. They are NO friends of liberty, and should be opposed at every step. If you make a point that they can find a way to take personally, they will shout you down with an abundance of hatred.

If it were not for having a major metropolitan/cosmopolitan city like NYC, NY State would never have supported the bill. The passage of the bill is a win for progressivism.

[inibo]

Then you shouldn't want the government to discriminate against polygamists, animal lovers, NAMBLA types, etc.

Polyamory I have no problem with. You can't marry an animal because an animal cannot enter into a contract. I wasn't even going to touch the NAMBLA dodge because sex with a child is a crime, if you believe in the rule of law, and children cannot enter into contracts or give informed consent--at least not as such consent is understood in our society. So the only one issue you "gotchas" that you brought up that has anything to do with marriage is polyamory. If I want to enter into a contract with two women, or a man and a woman or any other combination, how does that infringe on you or the state? The bible says I can have more than one wife, so who are you to say I can't?

[falconplayer11]

It's at the state level...it's fine with me. I have no problem with a marriage license at the state level. It's meaningless to me (if I were to ever get one...I mean as long as my church recognizes my marriage, I really don't care about the license), but if they are just going to give one out to whomever wants one, then that's good! This is a victory for liberty.

Now a Constitutional amendment at the federal level defining marriage between one man and one woman...that would be an encroachment on liberty.

[inibo]

Anyone who thinks state sanctioning of anything outside the realm of protecting life, liberty and property is advancement of society in any way, shape, or form - is mentally ill.

Fixed it for you.

[Don Lapre]

If I want to marry and apple or an orange how does that injure you?
I didn't say it injures me.

I said state sanctioning of fruit marriage does not help advance society in any way.

[amy31416]

It seems to me that this society is so mixed-up, legally, that there are no good answers. I am torn on this issue, because I don't think that the gov't has any business discriminating against people based on their personal lives, yet it's also true that the gov't has no business being involved at all.

I end up applying my agenda, rather than principles because I've mostly lost hope that the gov't can even come reasonably close to being ethical.

For instance, I was completely against repealing DADT because it gives young men an easy way out of combat, should they wake up and realize how repulsive our foreign policy is. I am (very) hesitantly for gay marriage, even though I don't believe that gov't should have any say in it, because it's wrong for the gov't to discriminate if we are to have a society where gov't is involved in our personal lives.

Ultimately, I find that these topics are just wedge issues and I usually distrust any politician/person who cares so much about them that it influences how they vote/legislate.

[Brett85]

Polyamory I have no problem with. You can't marry an animal because an animal cannot enter into a contract. I wasn't even going to touch the NAMBLA dodge because sex with a child is a crime, if you believe in the rule of law, and children cannot enter into contracts or give informed consent--at least not as such consent is understood in our society. So the only one issue you "gotchas" that you brought up that has anything to do with marriage is polyamory. If I want to enter into a contract with two women, or a man and a woman or any other combination, how does that infringe on you or the state? The bible says I can have more than one wife, so who are you to say I can't?

You can enter into a contract with whoever you want to, but that doesn't mean that the government has to enforce the contract.

[YumYum]

Doesn't injure me, but I feel bad for the orange after the relationship is consummated. :p

LOL!! I especially feel bad for the person who marries a pineapple that is into sodomy.

[YumYum]

Ultimately, I find that these topics are just wedge issues and I usually distrust any politician/person who cares so much about them that it influences how they vote/legislate.

Good point. It's like abortion. People running for office have to state whether they are "for" or "against" abortion. They have to choose sides; there is no "middle" ground. Yet, when Bush and the Republicans controlled our federal government for 5 and a half years, why didn't they pass a law making abortions illegal? They had their chance and they did nothing. So, it proves your point: gay marriage, abortion, etc., are just "wedge issues", which keeps America divided and people hating one another.

[libertythor]

LOL!! I especially feel bad for the person who marries a pineapple that is into sodomy.

+Rep for funny!

[Zap!]

I'm really amazed every time I see so-called "libertarians" cheering more government involvement in social matters.

This forum is bizzarro-world sometimes. State sanctioned gay marriage is not libertarian. It is the opposite direction of where we need to go.

Don't worry, some of us are against gay acceptance. Paleo-con here.

[BlackTerrel]

Ultimately, I find that these topics are just wedge issues and I usually distrust any politician/person who cares so much about them that it influences how they vote/legislate.

I am kind of with you here.

I think homosexuality is some sort of mental sickness (like being OCD) and I don't like it being embraced as normal.

That said the people who obsess over it are just as bad. I see many other more pressing issues.

[malkusm]

It is no less virtuous to ban people from marrying than it is to force third parties to accept a couple as married who otherwise would not accept the validity of their marriage.

Get the government out of marriage, entirely. Marriage is between two people and an institution that will contractually wed them, and everyone else should have the freedom to recognize the contract at their own discretion.

[Brian4Liberty]

LOL!! I especially feel bad for the person who marries a pineapple that is into sodomy.

What's wrong with putting pineapple in your mouth? :p

[specsaregood]

Don't worry, some of us are against gay acceptance. Paleo-con here.

Yes, we should shun them all except when beating them or throwing garbage at them. Identify and put them all in rank dungeons for life. That will make things all better.

[nbhadja]

Be honest.

How large is the movement for ending marriage benefits.

Stopping gay marriage does nothing but keep benefits and tax cuts for a special interest group.

The libertarian point of view is as follows:

Government should not be involved with marriage. If it is to be involved, it is not to be discriminatory.

Yeah now the social conservatives are just making excuses for their hatred of freedom since they want to "patent" the word marriage and act like they own it.

We oppose public schools, but since we have them they should not be discriminatory. The same thing goes with marriage. The government is involved so at least they should not be discriminatory.

Basically this is the religious rights logic (excuse) on gay marriage: The government should not be involved in providing education, therefore the right to grant Blacks entry into public schools is a blow to freedom (when in reality it was a win for freedom).

[nbhadja]

You are arguing for more government. As long as you understand that, ok.

No he isn't. The government already controls 100% of the marriage industry. This is just making it fair at least.

If social conservatives were so sincere on getting the government out of marriage then they would give up their government marriage licenses and back their words up with action- but I doubt that would ever happen.

[Echoes]

Not suprised, this is part of the Globalists agenda. Destroy the traditional family unit.

In a free, stateless society, so called gay 'marriage' would be roundly rejected by i'd say upwards of 95%+ of the pop. The *only* way that gay 'marriage' can get assimilated into the mainstream is through Govt violence.

The gay community, at least the ones i know here in NYC, are very authoritarian and pro big Gov't, pro 'social justice', etc. Certainly no friends of the liberty movement and not fans of Ron Paul.

I dont really get caught up in this stuff, though. America is doomed. This is just one more bad law on top of mountains of bad laws.

[Golding]

I'm fine with the state refusing to bar the ceremonies, because I don't believe in the hand-waving arguments centered around the mythical "traditional definition of marriage" or "traditional family unit". But I disagree with government "authorizing" marriage. It's not their business.

[nbhadja]

Not suprised, this is part of the Globalists agenda. Destroy the traditional family unit.

In a free, stateless society, so called gay 'marriage' would be roundly rejected by i'd say upwards of 95%+ of the pop. The *only* way that gay 'marriage' can get assimilated into the mainstream is through Govt violence.

The gay community, at least the ones i know here in NYC, are very authoritarian and pro big Gov't, pro 'social justice', etc. Certainly no friends of the liberty movement and not fans of Ron Paul.

I dont really get caught up in this stuff, though. America is doomed. This is just one more bad law on top of mountains of bad laws.

Shows you are very biased and wrong.

In a stateless society there would be multiple churches who would grant gays marriage. The only reason gays have not had the right to marry up until now was BECAUSE of government force.

[Brett85]

Marriage is between two people and an institution that will contractually wed them.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays can live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live free of government interference. However, they don't have the right to change our customs and traditions as a country.

[specsaregood]

Shows you are very biased and wrong.
In a stateless society there would be multiple churches who would grant gays marriage. The only reason gays have not had the right to marry up until now was BECAUSE of government force.

Uhm, I'm pretty sure there are already multiple churches that will marry gays already. It just isn't a govt contract. But the govt won't stop them from getting a church marriage.

[Echoes]

Shows you are very biased and wrong.

In a stateless society there would be multiple churches who would grant gays marriage. The only reason gays have not had the right to marry up until now was BECAUSE of government force.

What the ..? LOL

A few 'churches' do give them out, very few though--the fringe of the fringe, And Gov't doesnt prevent any churches, i dont know where you came up with that. Btw, i wasnt even referring to just Christianity, but folks in general throughout the world. The pro gay 'marriage' ppl are terrified of the free-market lol

[Feeding the Abscess]

You are arguing for more government. As long as you understand that, ok.

I am arguing for abolishment of government sanctioned marriage.


Government is discriminatory. That is what government does...it discriminates based on greed and political expedience. That is why there needs to be less involvement in everything, including marriage.


Where have people's libertarianism gone? I'll tell you where it has gone: it has been sacrificed at the altar of secularism. You hate the Lord so much that, just like with public schools teaching evolution only, you will accept the socialization because you love the idol of your own mind --secularism.

This is why it is very plain to see that secularists cannot be principled libertarians.

Your screeds are funny, and brighten my day.


This new policy is just as discriminatory as the old using your arguments. After all polygamist (Biblically sanction) get thrown in prison while sodomists get a benefit. Where is the "fairness" in that?

Correct. Not only that, but non-married couples and individuals are still getting the shaft.


Then you shouldn't want the government to discriminate against polygamists, animal lovers, NAMBLA types, etc.

We've gone over this before. Animals and six year old children cannot enter into contracts as a consenting adult.


Just get rid of the income tax, and the tax issue would be solved.

Correct. However, visitation rights and other financial benefits are still an issue.


You can enter into a contract with whoever you want to, but that doesn't mean that the government has to enforce the contract.

The government's role is to enforce contracts between consenting individuals. Why have a government if it isn't going to do that?


It is no less virtuous to ban people from marrying than it is to force third parties to accept a couple as married who otherwise would not accept the validity of their marriage.

Get the government out of marriage, entirely. Marriage is between two people and an institution that will contractually wed them, and everyone else should have the freedom to recognize the contract at their own discretion.

Marriage is between consenting individuals who wish to share their life(s) together, or whatever construct they employ. No person, groups of persons, or institution has the right to deny them that choice. The government's role in this is to enforce the contract between consenting individuals until consent is revoked.

[Rothbardian Girl]

What the ..? LOL

A few 'churches' do give them out, very few though--the fringe of the fringe, And Gov't doesnt prevent any churches, i dont know where you came up with that. Btw, i wasnt even referring to just Christianity, but folks in general throughout the world. The pro gay 'marriage' ppl are terrified of the free-market lol

Why would supporters of gay marriage be terrified of the "free market" (which in reality doesn't even exist, and never will as long as there's a state around)? The "free market" (hypothetically) would provide every opportunity for homosexuals to be married by catering to homosexual clients/customers. I don't see how this situation could ever possibly disturb your personal life.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I am arguing for abolishment of government sanctioned marriage.



Your screeds are funny, and brighten my day.



Correct. Not only that, but non-married couples and individuals are still getting the shaft.



We've gone over this before. Animals and six year old children cannot enter into contracts as a consenting adult.



Correct. However, visitation rights and other financial benefits are still an issue.



The government's role is to enforce contracts between consenting individuals. Why have a government if it isn't going to do that?



Marriage is between consenting individuals who wish to share their life(s) together, or whatever construct they employ. No person, groups of persons, or institution has the right to deny them that choice. The government's role in this is to enforce the contract between consenting individuals until consent is revoked.


Pretty much everything you've said.

And FWIW, I think that single parents and divorced parents are far more harmful in breaking up the family unit then gay marriage.

[RP Supporter]

Speaking as a gay male, I'm a little annoyed by how much attention the issue is getting. You're telling me NY had no other pressing issues to tackle that they needed to do this now? I do view it positively, but it's little more then a publicity stunt by the legislature. Also amusing is the Democrats only allowed it to pass when the GOP controlled the legislature, surely so they could shift some of the "blame" their way.

I used to be really big on gay marriage, but I've grown convinced government is not the answer and should get out of marriage entirely. That's not likely to happen, so I don't really blame the push for gay marriage, though I view it as a bit misguided. But I can't really fault NY either. This will be a boost to the state economy, as many of the more... devoted? gays become willing to spend the "pink dollar" or whatever it's called nowadays. One of the big reasons I thought it was stupid California repealed it, but neither here nor their.

[LibertyEagle]

I am arguing for abolishment of government sanctioned marriage.


Huh? Did you change positions or something? Because what I read was you arguing for gay marriage.

[nobody's_hero]

Not everyone is of the opinion that two guys playing footsies is immoral.

Or that this is 'forced acceptance', for that matter.

[AZKing]

The gay community, at least the ones i know here in NYC, are very authoritarian and pro big Gov't, pro 'social justice', etc. Certainly no friends of the liberty movement and not fans of Ron Paul.

Perhaps if the socons hadn't spent decades slandering/vilifying gays, there wouldn't be such a concentration of gays that are liberal/democrat.

Besides that, it's NYC... not like the people there are friends of the liberty movement period, regardless of sexual orientation.

[Theocrat]

The government banning gays from getting a marriage license is identical to if the government banned black people from getting a business license. Sure, we libertarians would like to do away with government licensing altogether, but so long as the government does license stuff, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

You're comparing apples and oranges. It's one thing to ban someone from something based on the color of his skin, which he cannot help. But it's another thing to ban someone from something based on his preference, which he chooses.

[libertybrewcity]

the government shouldn't be involved in marriage.

[reillym]

You're comparing apples and oranges. It's one thing to ban someone from something based on the color of his skin, which he cannot help. But it's another thing to ban someone from something based on his preference, which he chooses.

Please, nobody else on this forum agrees with your bigoted hate speech. Homosexuality isn't a choice, science says so. I guess all those gay dolphins are choosing too? Gay monkeys?

Shut up bigot.

[erowe1]

Please, nobody else on this forum agrees with your bigoted hate speech. Homosexuality isn't a choice, science says so. I guess all those gay dolphins are choosing too? Gay monkeys?

Shut up bigot.

Science says this? Really?

And disagreeing with that is bigoted hate speech?

[BlackTerrel]

What's wrong with putting pineapple in your mouth? :p

Do you like fish sticks? You like putting fish sticks in your mouth?

[BamaAla]

The government banning gays from getting a marriage license is identical to if the government banned black people from getting a business license.


Basically this is the religious rights logic (excuse) on gay marriage: The government should not be involved in providing education, therefore the right to grant Blacks entry into public schools is a blow to freedom (when in reality it was a win for freedom).


Please, nobody else on this forum agrees with your bigoted hate speech. Homosexuality isn't a choice, science says so.

Shut up bigot.

Really guys? For opposing bigger government?

[Meatwasp]

Please remember the gays forced the schools, (though government pressure to teach kids the Gay life style is a Healthy alternative. What other agenda will they want to use government to push what they believe? Next namba?

[dejavu22]

LOL!! I especially feel bad for the person who marries a pineapple that is into sodomy.


What's wrong with putting pineapple in your mouth? :p

Um... sodomy is not exactly that hole but... whatever floats your boat.

Whether it is a choice or not is not really my problem. If it is something physiological and someone cannot help but be gay then it is the same as being born black but if it is a choice i see it the same as i look at drug use. It is not a choice that i would make but everyone has the right to make that choice for themselves. That is why i oppose the war on drugs, like the gay issue my opinion on the subject doesn't matter because i have no right to make that choice for other people so long as I am not caused harm by it. So far as i know 2 guys getting married cant possibly harm me so my opinion on their marriage is of no consequence.

[madfoot]

NY sucks, it's a socialist state with no freedom for anyone, unless you happen to be in an alternate marriage. Only in a rouge state can you be denied your Constitutional right to buy a gun without restrictions, yet legally marry with no problem if you're both the same sex. The state legislature can go to Hell. Seeing people support this here makes me want to seriously reconsider any connections to libertarians. The Constitution Party would never tolerate this.

The Constitution Party wouldn't tolerate this because they're f--king fascists. I live in NY and it's just fine here.

[sorianofan]

Marriage is not a state issue unlike abortion. Abortion is an act of murder, gay marriage is a matter of personal morality--the something the state has no role is regulating.

[Vessol]

The Constitution Party wouldn't tolerate this because they're f--king fascists. I live in NY and it's just fine here.

Says the guy who thinks that the government should mandate vacation time


Is this one of the shortcomings libertarian policy-making? I certainly don't see the tyranny in seeing that employees are guaranteed a certain amount of vacation time.

[heavenlyboy34]

Says the guy who thinks that the government should mandate vacation time
lolz...madfoot's been pwned! :)

[Theocrat]

Please, nobody else on this forum agrees with your bigoted hate speech. Homosexuality isn't a choice, science says so. I guess all those gay dolphins are choosing too? Gay monkeys?

Shut up bigot.

I'm not being a bigot for making the distinction between two different forms of discrimination, reillym. Just because you disagree with my reasoning doesn't make me a bigot, nor does it mean it's hate speech. That's a bit of an exaggeration.

Also, you need to know that science doesn't say anything. Science is a field of study, filled with assumptions and data based on worldviews to interpret natural phenomena. Science is not a person; therefore, it can't tell us anything. You've simply engaged in a logical fallacy of reification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29). To compare human behavior to that of dolphins and monkeys is very primitive and false, for there are many things which animals do that we do not share as humans in terms of ethical living (such as eating their young).

You might be interested to know that there are many gays who believe their homosexual behavior is a choice (http://www.*****bychoice.com/), and they reject any scientific justification to the contrary. So, not every gay person believes their sexual lifestyle is natural.

But I digress.

[juleswin]

You are arguing for more government. As long as you understand that, ok.

say it differently, allowing black to marry is arguing for more govt. Increasing the number of people eligible to qualify for govt handout reserved for married couples. This is why govt should completely be out of the marriage buisness but if she insists on running the show,she better be rdy to treat everybody(consenting adults willing to join in a union with each other) fairly.

That or give those being discriminated against an exemption on paying any taxes.

[YumYum]

Also, you need to know that science doesn't say anything. Science is a field of study, filled with assumptions and data based on worldviews to interpret natural phenomena. Science is not a person; therefore, it can't tell us anything. You've simply engaged in a logical fallacy of reification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29). To compare human behavior to that of dolphins and monkeys is very primitive and false, for there are many things which animals do that we do not share as humans in terms of ethical living (such as eating their young).

When I was a homophobe I got into a debate on the net about homosexuality being unnatural in God's eyes and I learned that there are some animals that are homosexuals. I have two male goats and one is gay. I had to separate them because the gay goat keeps porking the other goat, and the straight goat goes nuts. What is really weird is that the goats are brothers.

Some animal behavior is more "ethical" than human behavior. Geese and wolves find a mate and keep it for life. Humans haven't been able to accomplish that yet on a grand scale. I watched a goose grieve to death by starving himself, and he cried continually over the death of his mate.

[Brett85]

Please, nobody else on this forum agrees with your bigoted hate speech. Homosexuality isn't a choice, science says so. I guess all those gay dolphins are choosing too? Gay monkeys?

Shut up bigot.

Apparently you're bigoted against Christians and other people of faith.

[AuH20]

The Constitution Party wouldn't tolerate this because they're f--king fascists. I live in NY and it's just fine here.

Are you joking? New York is totalitarian USA. No transfats. Strict gun laws. etc. You need a permit to basically do anything. LOL

[Meatwasp]

[QUOTE=YumYum;3363290]When I was a homophobe I got into a debate on the net about homosexuality being unnatural in God's eyes and I learned that there are some animals that are homosexuals. I have two male goats and one is gay. I had to separate them because the gay goat keeps porking the other goat, and the straight goat goes nuts. What is really weird is that the goats are brothers.
But but they are animals not humans.

[AuH20]

I have an interesting take on all this. I have no problems with gays marrying but I do have a problem with this culture being pushed on others. Nowadays, it seems that anything homosexual related is breathtakingly fabulous and enlightened, while heterosexuality is almost looked down upon.

[Ricky201]

Here's are all the gay debate talking points that we always go through in EVERY single gay thread:

Yay for gay!

Being gay is choice!

You bigot!

You anti-christian bigot!

Homosexuality occurs in nature!

This is part of the globalist agenda!

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage!

So now you say someone should be able to marry a goat?!

You're just an evil Christian!

Homosexuality is a sin!

We want a non-discriminatory government!

This is the expansion on the welfare state!

----

Did I miss anything or do we want to continue throwing poo at one another for 10 more pages and continue going nowhere with this topic?

[Danke]

When I was a homophobe I got into a debate on the net about homosexuality being unnatural in God's eyes and I learned that there are some animals that are homosexuals. I have two male goats and one is gay. I had to separate them because the gay goat keeps porking the other goat, and the straight goat goes nuts. What is really weird is that the goats are brothers.

But but they are animals not humans.

lol, you know YumYum just makes shit up about his life/experiences, right?

[Meatwasp]

lol, you know YumYum just makes shit up about his life/experiences, right?

Oh yes I noticed that a long time ago. My sister used to do that so I recognize it. Hee.

[bill1971]

Until government gets out of marriage, it should be open to any two consenting adults. If you don't want to marry a person of the same sex, you don't have to.

[bill1971]

You're comparing apples and oranges. It's one thing to ban someone from something based on the color of his skin, which he cannot help. But it's another thing to ban someone from something based on his preference, which he chooses.

Yes, good point they should have to be with someone who they are not sexually attracted to because some people feel uncomfortable or their religion tells them it's wrong.

[ronpaulitician]

I have an interesting take on all this. I have no problems with gays marrying but I do have a problem with this culture being pushed on others. Nowadays, it seems that anything homosexual related is breathtakingly fabulous and enlightened, while heterosexuality is almost looked down upon.
What's a common slur used to describe heterosexuals?

[AuH20]

What's a common slur used to describe heterosexuals?

Breeders.

[Anti Federalist]

The Constitution Party wouldn't tolerate this because they're f--king fascists. I live in NY and it's just fine here.

RP endorses fascists?

WTF?

This argument is stupid.

No government marriage control, period.

[Anti Federalist]

lol, you know YumYum just makes shit up about his life/experiences, right?

I dunno, the story of how he made out with his mom, had a ring of truth to it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?294961-Ron-Paul-I-Wouldn-t-Serve-in-Middle-East-Wars

[ronpaulitician]

Breeders.
Never heard it before*. And plenty of non-heterosexuals in my daily life.

*and if I did, it must not have offended me

[amy31416]

I dunno, the story of how he made out with his mom, had a ring of truth to it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?294961-Ron-Paul-I-Wouldn-t-Serve-in-Middle-East-Wars

That ought to be nominated as one of the top threads of this here forum.

[AuH20]

Never heard it before*. And plenty of non-heterosexuals in my daily life.

*and if I did, it must not have offended me

Recently, it's usage has started to pick up steam, especially in light of the Malthusian propaganda which has started to gain sway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_%28slang%29


"Breeder" is a denigrating term for heterosexuals used in LGBT slang. It is often used pejoratively.

The use in homosexual groups is drawn from the fact that their sexual activity cannot lead to reproduction, whereas heterosexual sexual intercourse can, with implicit mocking by connotation of animal husbandry, the original usage of the word.[1][2]

[specialK]

Never heard it before*. And plenty of non-heterosexuals in my daily life.

*and if I did, it must not have offended me

That term was used by gays in my city 30 years ago. It was a pejorative label for hetero females.

[Anti Federalist]

That ought to be nominated as one of the top threads of this here forum.

Agreed and bumped

[UWDude]

Speaking as a gay male, I'm a little annoyed by how much attention the issue is getting. You're telling me NY had no other pressing issues to tackle that they needed to do this now? I do view it positively, but it's little more then a publicity stunt by the legislature. Also amusing is the Democrats only allowed it to pass when the GOP controlled the legislature, surely so they could shift some of the "blame" their way.

I used to be really big on gay marriage, but I've grown convinced government is not the answer and should get out of marriage entirely. That's not likely to happen, so I don't really blame the push for gay marriage, though I view it as a bit misguided. But I can't really fault NY either. This will be a boost to the state economy, as many of the more... devoted? gays become willing to spend the "pink dollar" or whatever it's called nowadays. One of the big reasons I thought it was stupid California repealed it, but neither here nor their.

You immoral bastard!! You are ruining the country with your anti-freedom globalist agenda!! This isn't the communist forums, you pink pinko!!!11!


The gay community, at least the ones i know here in NYC, are very authoritarian and pro big Gov't, pro 'social justice', etc. Certainly no friends of the liberty movement and not fans of Ron Paul.

According to this guy, you don't even exist, pal!


while heterosexuality is almost looked down upon.

like Canada is almost on Mars

[AuH20]

You immoral bastard!! You are ruining the country with your anti-freedom globalist agenda!! This isn't the communist forums, you pink pinko!!!11!



You don't even exist, pal!

Weren't some of the most notorious Nazis homosexuals (Himmler)? I know it's coincidental but that gay RP supporter seems to be touching on something when discussing the authoritarian nature of urban homosexuals in NYC.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37535


Be that as it may, let us return to the Third Reich. The Nazi movement really began when Hitler started to associate with Erich Roehm (Röhm) at a Bierkeller homosexual hangout in Munich. Author William Shirer in his classic “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” describes Roehm as “a stocky, bull-necked, piggish-eyed, scar-faced professional soldier…[and] like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual.” Roehm was in anybody’s estimation a nasty, mean piece of work.

In 1923 Hitler, with the backing of Roehm’s SA (Stuermabteilung—Storm Troopers), attempted a coup on the government in Bavaria, Germany (the Beer Hall Putsch). The coup failed, and Hitler ended up spending nine months in prison, where he wrote his “textbook” for the coming fascist revolution, “Mein Kampf.”

Also jailed at the same prison were purportedly homosexual chauffeur, Emile Maurice, and close friend and aide, Rudolf Hess. Hess had nicknames among the Nazi inner circle such as “Fraulein Hess,” “Fraulein Anna,” “Fraulein Paula,” and “Black Emma.” Hess, like many homosexuals of the day, eventually married, but his wife complained that their love life was on a par with that of a “convent schoolgirl.”

Hitler’s infamous SA Brownshirt thugs, which Roehm led to a position of great power, were largely the creation of homosexual Gerhard Rossbach. Lively and Abrams write, “In the SA, the Hellenic model of masculine homosexual supremacy and militarism had finally been realized.”

Historian Louis Snyder observes that “what was needed, Roehm believed, was a proud and arrogant lot who could brawl, carouse, smash windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it. Straights, in his eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practicing homosexuals.” WW II correspondent H.R. Knickerbocker wrote, “unless a Storm Troop officer were homosexual he had no chance of advancement.” Link

The homosexual Ludwig Lenz, who was one of the Fem homosexuals in charge of the ISR mentioned earlier, said of the Nazis “...not 10% of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal.” He would know, as many of the Nazi leaders had been under treatment at his clinic.

After Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January of 1933, the SA exploded from a force of around 300,000 men to about 3,000,000 in a year’s time. This created some problems for Hitler, big problems. Certain powerful interests in Germany, including the Wehrmacht, told him in no uncertain terms that either Roehm went, or they would pull their support from Hitler.
The Night of the Long Knives, or the Roehm Purge

The result was “The Night of the Long Knives,” or the “Roehm Purge,” in which around 1,000 individuals, including Roehm, were murdered. Lively and Abrams note that “the Roehm Purge was not motivated by the homosexuality of its victims. The great majority of the victims were not homosexuals at all.” Hitler used the opportunity to rid himself of a number of political enemies—some homosexual, but most not.

Waiting in the wings was Heinrich Himmler and the SS (SchutzStaffel—Protection Squadron) who now came into their own. Himmler was deeply into the occult, and sent missions out around the world to track down various ancient artifacts (the inspiration behind the movie “Raiders of the Lost Ark”). Link

On a much more serious note, Himmler was in charge of the extermination of the Jews. The Nazis built around 10,000 work camps, in which many died, but they only built six concentration camps, or death camps, in which millions were murdered. The six killing centers were: Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sobidor, Chelmno, Belzec, Maidenek, and Treblinka. Link

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during WW II, had many photos and movies made of what the Allies found at the concentration camps. He knew human nature, and wanted records made because he believed that “the day will come when some son of a b—ch will say that this never happened.” Good call Dwight. Link Link

Homosexuals have taken to claiming to be victims of the Holocaust (Shoah), alongside the Jews. This is despicable nonsense. Less than 1% of Europe’s population of homosexuals were incarcerated by the Nazis (almost all of them Fems). The Jews, however, lost around 85% of their population, and they were almost invariably sent to one of the six extermination camps. The Nazi regime, for political reasons put on a facade of firm anti-homosexuality, but behind the facade it was a different story. As is always the case with the Far Left, it is not what they say, but what they do, you need to pay attention to. That their rhetoric is for show, misdirection, and cover is a given.

In a “Washington Blade” article, historian John Fouts reported that “about 50,000 men were imprisoned for homosexual ‘offences’ by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945. Most of them…were imprisoned for relatively short sentences and in regular German prisons, not concentration camps.” According to Lively and Abrams, perhaps as little as a few dozen, or a few hundred homosexuals were actually sent to a death camp. It is estimated that over 4,000,000 of the 6 million+ Jews killed in WW II were killed in the concentration camps. Link

The mind-boggling cruelty and ruthlessness of the Nazi death camps has been covered extensively elsewhere, so I feel no need to delve into it here, though I would like to point out a few facts. The bizarre and depraved atmosphere of Nazi fascism seems to have set free (or attract) an especially virulent form of sadism.

In his book “The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals,” Frank Rector writes “As for the SS, their behavior was typical among those who engaged in sexual bestiality. An example is a film…that was secretly made for the pornographic enjoyment of a select coterie of Nazis showing a wild drunken orgy of beautiful boys and handsome young men being whipped, raped and murdered by the SS.” Purportedly, copies of this film are still making the rounds at certain exclusive circles in Europe.

[Justinjj1]

Don't worry, some of us are against gay acceptance. Paleo-con here.

AKA closet homosexual

[UWDude]

Weren't some of the most notorious Nazis homosexuals (Himmler)?

LoL. Yes. So was Socrates and Plato and Michelangelo and probably Alexander the Great. Sometimes powerful people are gay. Sometimes people have doors opened to them because there are secret or quiet gay social circles. Same thing with Christians, Muslims, cocaine users, Scientologists, Jews, remote control car enthusiasts and bikers.

Funnily, my modern German History professor's specialty was sexuality in Modern Germany, so we went over this topic quite a bit. Indeed, the pink triangle is what gay people were forced to wear in concentration camps.

But I'm really not sure what the point is, homosexuals were both Nazis and victims of Nazis.. ...ok. What does that have to do with gay marriage?

And let's just be clear, there are PLENTY of gay libertarians.

[scottditzen]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays can live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live free of government interference. However, they don't have the right to change our customs and traditions as a country.

Customs and traditions change all the time.

There's no inherent right for things to stay the same.

[AuH20]

LoL. Yes. So was Socrates and Plato and Michelangelo and probably Alexander the Great. Sometimes powerful people are gay. Sometimes people have doors opened to them because there are secret or quiet gay social circles. Same thing with Christians, Muslims, cocaine users, Scientologists, Jews, remote control car enthusiasts and bikers.

Funnily, my modern German History professor's specialty was sexuality in Modern Germany, so we went over this topic quite a bit. Indeed, the pink triangle is what gay people were forced to wear in concentration camps.

But I'm really not sure what the point is, homosexuals were both Nazis and victims of Nazis.. ...ok. What does that have to do with gay marriage?

And let's just be clear, there are PLENTY of gay libertarians.

Perhaps, at that time in history, the alienation by society at large and the accumulation of repressed emotions leads to an increased inferiority complex, which in turn can be transformed into extremely narcissistic behavior, one of the trademarks of the Third Reich.

[ronpaulitician]

Customs and traditions change all the time.

There's no inherent right for things to stay the same.
Especially government-imposed inequality.

[UWDude]

Perhaps, at that time in history, the alienation by society at large and the accumulation of repressed emotions leads to an increased inferiority complex, which in turn can be transformed into extremely narcissistic behavior, one of the trademarks of the Third Reich.

The vast majority of nazis were straight.

[AuH20]

The vast majority of nazis were straight.

Maybe the footsoldiers, but not the command/control cabal based on reports.

[UWDude]

Maybe the footsoldiers, but not the command/control cabal based on reports.

Reports from who?

My professor, (and I assure you, her specialty was sexuality) never mentioned such notions. And I also assure you, we went over the homosexuality thing, both in Nazi imagery and propaganda, and the imprisonment of homosexuals. But, I would think she would have mentioned that the majority were gay.

Seriously, you need to stop godwynning the thread on such spurious and sparse evidence.

[Danke]

Reports from who?

My professor, (and I assure you, her specialty was sexuality)...

"was"? What happen?

[UWDude]

"was"? What happen?

She's not my professor anymore. Hence my consistent use of the past-tense.

[Danke]

She's not my professor anymore. Hence my consistent use of the past-tense.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. I thought maybe you had something to do with it.

[YumYum]

lol, you know YumYum just makes shit up about his life/experiences, right?

You're just jealous Danke because you wish you had a gay goat.

[vab0914]

I was just wondering how this is not a victory for personal liberty?
Assuming liberty defenders believe everyone is responsible for their own person, then everyone should also be allowed to marry who they want, or is my logic flawed?
Just as an adult makes their own choice about raw milk or marijuana, why cannot two consenting adults make the choice to get married?
That is pure gender discrimination and nothing else. To be against same sex marriage seems just as silly as being against interracial marriage, to me.
I would like to hear arguments against this. Where is the harm to society or otherwise?

[nobody's_hero]

I've yet to see how this 'forces' a belief on anyone.

I hate to tell you, but if this law was supposed to make everyone believe that gay marriage was okay, judging by some comments here on this thread, it FAILED miserably.

Perhaps, though, the law's intent was not to change minds, coercively or otherwise.

[Don Lapre]

I was just wondering how this is not a victory for personal liberty?

It's not a victory for personal liberty because LIBERTY would be the state being completely OUT of the marriage business.

The state is already eyeballs deep in our business by being IN the marriage business, and now, by adding b*ttf*cking deviants to their marriage logs, they've taken a bad situation (state involved in marriage) and created a HUGE clusterfuck of complication and implication.

Just wait and watch what happens a few years down the road.

The implications of fundamentally changing the definition of marriage - legally, economically, and socially, are enormous.

NO friend to liberty.

[Brett85]

I was just wondering how this is not a victory for personal liberty?
Assuming liberty defenders believe everyone is responsible for their own person, then everyone should also be allowed to marry who they want, or is my logic flawed?
Just as an adult makes their own choice about raw milk or marijuana, why cannot two consenting adults make the choice to get married?
That is pure gender discrimination and nothing else. To be against same sex marriage seems just as silly as being against interracial marriage, to me.
I would like to hear arguments against this. Where is the harm to society or otherwise?

Gays could marry each other before. They could have their own private marriage ceremony at a church or wherever else, and they wouldn't get arrested for it. But now, taxpayers are basically forced to subsidize their marriage. Religious people who object to homosexuality are being forced to send their tax dollars to something that they strongly disagree with.

[amy31416]

Gays could marry each other before. They could have their own private marriage ceremony at a church or wherever else, and they wouldn't get arrested for it. But now, taxpayers are basically forced to subsidize their marriage. Religious people who object to homosexuality are being forced to send their tax dollars to something that they strongly disagree with.

By the same token, weren't homosexuals forced to subsidize heterosexual marriage?

[specsaregood]

Reports from who?

From whoM?

[Brett85]

By the same token, weren't homosexuals forced to subsidize heterosexual marriage?

Probably so. I wouldn't be opposed to doing away with the tax benefits. Abolish the income tax, and that will solve the tax issue. Phase out Social Security, and there won't be any SS benefits. Etc.

[RP Supporter]

Bottom line, I have misgivings about this decision because it once again makes the government out to be the "giver" of rights. Gays are now going to point out that the government says they have aright to get married. Philosophically I have a huge problem with that almost worshiping of government power.

Pragmatically I'm in favor of the decision, because I know you'll not get government out of marriage for a long while, if ever. But it still unnerves me to see people rejoicing over government's power to "give" them rights.

[Anti Federalist]

Probably so. I wouldn't be opposed to doing away with the tax benefits. Abolish the income tax, and that will solve the tax issue. Phase out Social Security, and there won't be any SS benefits. Etc.

That ^^^

[idirtify]

Not exactly. Not having a business license prevents you from exercising a natural right you should be free to exercise anyway. Not having a marriage license doesn't keep you from exercising any natural right; it only keeps you from special government privileges that shouldn't exist at all. It's more like banning some groups of people from receiving welfare benefits.

Since licensed businesses get government benefits and privileges too, the analogy is a good one. And since free trade and free association are both natural rights, you are incorrect. While it’s true that neither businesses nor married couples should get said benefits, it is also a right that individuals are not discriminated against by their government. In fact, government is really the only thing legally prohibited from discriminating. And that is one of the GOOD prohibitions; because whenever the government discriminates less, individual liberty benefits.

[Sola_Fide]

Probably so. I wouldn't be opposed to doing away with the tax benefits. Abolish the income tax, and that will solve the tax issue. Phase out Social Security, and there won't be any SS benefits. Etc.

This: the direction of liberty^^^.

What New York did: not liberty-oriented.


It's kind of sad to read some of the responses here that are so confident in how this was a good decision for liberty somehow. The people who have been taken in by secularism and are pulling for all of these statist gay laws..... you guys need to think critically about Liberty. Stop letting your secularism distort your view of liberty.

Some of the responses in this thread are very troubling moving forward. If a sexual behavior is enough to make you lose your consistency in libertarianism, what else could make you lose it?

[amy31416]

This: the direction of liberty^^^.

What New York did: not liberty-oriented.


It's kind of sad to read some of the responses here that are so confident in how this was a good decision for liberty somehow. The people who have been taken in by secularism and are pulling for all of these statist gay laws..... you guys need to think critically about Liberty. Stop letting your secularism distort your view of liberty.

Some of the responses in this thread are very troubling moving forward. If a sexual behavior is enough to make you lose your consistency in libertarianism, what else could make you lose it?

Let me ask you this--

If the tax structure and social security never changes, and abolishing those programs/taxes is never going to be an option, do you think that it's okay for the government to discriminate and grant certain people privileges, but not others?

Because what I'm getting from the social conservatives here is that it's just fine for the government to pick and choose who they do or don't bestow benefits upon. If it's okay to restrict gays, well then it's also okay to restrict other groups, like Mormons, the Amish, fundamentalist Christians, etc.

While you guys are talking about an ideal situation that doesn't exist and may never exist, that is the crutch you're using to practice your fear(?) of homosexuality. It has nothing to do with libertarianism or statism or consistency.

I'll admit when I have a bias (so long as I'm aware of it), and the bias of social conservatives is incredibly obvious, especially when trying to shroud it in shaming people for not being perfect libertarians. Your argument is agenda-driven, not philosophically driven.

One of the reasons that I respect Ron Paul is that he doesn't engage in such techniques to "win" a debate, he stays (almost entirely) philosophically consistent EVEN WHEN his personal beliefs may be different.

[madfoot]

Says the guy who thinks that the government should mandate vacation time

1) I never said I supported it. I just said it didn't seem tyrannical.
2) It's not tyrannical.

[Theocrat]

Let me ask you this--

If the tax structure and social security never changes, and abolishing those programs/taxes is never going to be an option, do you think that it's okay for the government to discriminate and grant certain people privileges, but not others?

Because what I'm getting from the social conservatives here is that it's just fine for the government to pick and choose who they do or don't bestow benefits upon. If it's okay to restrict gays, well then it's also okay to restrict other groups, like Mormons, the Amish, fundamentalist Christians, etc.

I think your slippery slope approach to restrictions applies the other way around, too. If not only heterosexuals and homosexuals are allowed to enjoy state-granted privileges in marriage, then how about pedophiles? Polygamists? Bestialists? Where does the line stop where a state says two parties cannot be married and enjoy those privileges?

[madfoot]

RP endorses fascists?

WTF?

This argument is stupid.

No government marriage control, period.

Just because they're called the Constitution Party doesn't mean they're actually constitutionalists. They're theocrats.


The Constitution Party is a far-right paleoconservative political party in the United States. It was founded as the U.S. Taxpayers' Party by Howard Philips in 1991.[3] Phillips was the party's candidate in the 1992, 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. The party's official name was changed to the Constitution Party in 1999; however, some state affiliate parties are known under different names. The party's goal as stated in its own words is "to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations." [4] The party puts a large focus on immigration, calling for stricter penalties towards illegal immigrants and a moratorium on legal immigration until all federal subsidies to immigrants are discontinued.[5] The party absorbed the American Independent Party, originally founded for George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign. The American Independent Party of California has been an affiliate of the Constitution Party since its founding; however, current party leadership is disputed and the issue is in court to resolve this conflict. It has some substantial support from the Christian Right and in 2010 achieved major party status in Colorado.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_%28United_States%29

I was not aware Ron Paul ever endorsed the CP. If that's true, I don't agree with him there.


I think your slippery slope approach to restrictions applies the other way around, too. If not only heterosexuals and homosexuals are allowed to enjoy state-granted privileges in marriage, then how about pedophiles? Polygamists? Bestialists? Where does the line stop where a state says two parties cannot be married and enjoy those privileges?

Children and animals can't consent to a sexual relationship. As for polygamy, there's no ethical reason it shouldn't be legally recognized eventually, although that would require a hefty reworking of marriage law in a way gay marriage doesn't.

[Brett85]

Just because they're called the Constitution Party doesn't mean they're actually constitutionalists. They're theocrats.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_%28United_States%29

I was not aware Ron Paul ever endorsed the CP. If that's true, I don't agree with him there.

Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin is awesome. He's basically a theocratic anarchist.

[amy31416]

I think your slippery slope approach to restrictions applies the other way around, too. If not only heterosexuals and homosexuals are allowed to enjoy state-granted privileges in marriage, then how about pedophiles? Polygamists? Bestialists? Where does the line stop where a state says two parties cannot be married and enjoy those privileges?

There is the very strong argument that only those who can give consent can enter into a contract, which would render the "concern" about pedophiles and bestiality afficionados a non-issue. As far as polygamists go, it's not for me, and I'd probably scoff at it, but if the folks who wanted that were all consenting adults, it's none of my business.

So there's your line--it stops at anything beyond consenting adults. And our government has not always been too great at that, considering this country's history with inter-racial marriage.

[amy31416]

Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin is awesome. He's basically a theocratic anarchist.

I have much respect for Chuck. Hope things work out well for him in Montana--he'll probably have better chances than in Florida.

[Theocrat]

There is the very strong argument that only those who can give consent can enter into a contract, which would render the "concern" about pedophiles and bestiality afficionados a non-issue. As far as polygamists go, it's not for me, and I'd probably scoff at it, but if the folks who wanted that were all consenting adults, it's none of my business.

So there's your line--it stops at anything beyond consenting adults. And our government has not always been too great at that, considering this country's history with inter-racial marriage.

Children can be taught to consent to the terms of the contract, if they are wanting to be married to an adult (as sick as that sounds). Since animals belong to their owners, there may be an exception or waiver for them to be in a contract, though. My point is if marriage can be whatever the state deems the people want, then there could come a time where unions based on things like pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and bestiality are accepted by the state, and the appropriate tax-incentives are given to those civil unions.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Children can be taught to consent to the terms of the contract, if they are wanting to be married to an adult (as sick as that sounds). Since animals belong to their owners, there may be an exception or waiver for them to be in a contract, though. My point is if marriage can be whatever the state deems the people want, then there could come a time where unions based on things like pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and bestiality are accepted by the state, and the appropriate tax-incentives are given to those civil unions.

People might do unruly things with their 1st Amendment rights. Let's take away the 1st Amendment to make sure we aren't offended.

People might harm someone else with a firearm. Let's do away with the 2nd Amendment to protect the children.

People might be hiding criminal activity from law enforcement. Let's do away with the 4th Amendment.

Should I continue? Marriage = consenting adults, all tax breaks and benefits should be applied equally, or none at all (which is preferable, as even that system discriminates against non-married persons).

Also, +rep to Amy for pointing out that any group could be singled out for discrimination using the logic against gay marriage.

[amy31416]

Children can be taught to consent to the terms of the contract, if they are wanting to be married to an adult (as sick as that sounds). Since animals belong to their owners, there may be an exception or waiver for them to be in a contract, though. My point is if marriage can be whatever the state deems the people want, then there could come a time where unions based on things like pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and bestiality are accepted by the state, and the appropriate tax-incentives are given to those civil unions.

Well okay then. You win, because it's very, very likely that the state will start giving out licenses (and tax breaks!) so folks can marry their llama, aunt mom and 4-year-olds.

But hey, it's a great way to use an argument appealing to emotion, rather than principles.

[madfoot]

Children can be taught to consent to the terms of the contract, if they are wanting to be married to an adult (as sick as that sounds). Since animals belong to their owners, there may be an exception or waiver for them to be in a contract, though. My point is if marriage can be whatever the state deems the people want, then there could come a time where unions based on things like pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and bestiality are accepted by the state, and the appropriate tax-incentives are given to those civil unions.

Children and animals can't legally consent. Period. I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Sola_Fide]

Let me ask you this--

If the tax structure and social security never changes, and abolishing those programs/taxes is never going to be an option, do you think that it's okay for the government to discriminate and grant certain people privileges, but not others?

Because what I'm getting from the social conservatives here is that it's just fine for the government to pick and choose who they do or don't bestow benefits upon. If it's okay to restrict gays, well then it's also okay to restrict other groups, like Mormons, the Amish, fundamentalist Christians, etc.

While you guys are talking about an ideal situation that doesn't exist and may never exist, that is the crutch you're using to practice your fear(?) of homosexuality. It has nothing to do with libertarianism or statism or consistency.

I'll admit when I have a bias (so long as I'm aware of it), and the bias of social conservatives is incredibly obvious, especially when trying to shroud it in shaming people for not being perfect libertarians. Your argument is agenda-driven, not philosophically driven.

One of the reasons that I respect Ron Paul is that he doesn't engage in such techniques to "win" a debate, he stays (almost entirely) philosophically consistent EVEN WHEN his personal beliefs may be different.


I'm just saying the consistent libertarian position is to not have a manipulative federal tax/spend system. Expanding the manipulation or making it "fair" may seem noble, but it is not consistent with liberty. It is just another step into the spider web of statism.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm just saying the consistent libertarian position is to not have a manipulative federal tax/spend system. Expanding the manipulation or making it "fair" may seem noble, but it is not consistent with liberty. It is just another step into the spider web of statism.

Obviously, but that is a strawman, as we aren't arguing against that.

The argument is as follows:

In a non-libertarian arrangement, the most libertarian position is one that discriminates least.

Hell, many of Ron's votes are of that variety. Example: tax policy vote, December of 2010.

Also, the implication that the using of force by the State to bestow benefits on certain groups of persons while excluding others is a position of greater liberty than removing that power is humorous at best.

[amy31416]

I'm just saying the consistent libertarian position is to not have a manipulative federal tax/spend system. Expanding the manipulation or making it "fair" may seem noble, but it is not consistent with liberty. It is just another step into the spider web of statism.

And your argument has absolutely nothing to do with your own personal, socially conservative outlook? Especially the points that you're trying to make which are "shaming" people for not being pure libertarians? I'm willing to wager that you wouldn't be making a "you're not a pure libertarian" argument on an issue that you don't feel strongly about. For instance, I was completely against the repeal of DADT, not because of a principled stance, but because I want young men to have a way out of the military, should there be a draft. That's me applying my agenda.

Ask yourself honestly if you'd make the same argument if it were Christians who were denied the "right" to marry whomever they choose. If the government can grant special privileges to one group of people and deny others, it can certainly come back to bite you in the ass.

[squarepusher]

how about Polygamy?

[Feeding the Abscess]

how about Polygamy?

All consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

[squarepusher]

All consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

so marriage is equivalent to buying a pack of cigarettes?

[madfoot]

so marriage is equivalent to buying a pack of cigarettes?

wat

[Feeding the Abscess]

so marriage is equivalent to buying a pack of cigarettes?

In that people should be able to choose to partake in both? Yes.

But really, that's a ridiculous question.

[YumYum]

Heterosexual parents are the cause of homosexuality. They keep having homosexual babies.

[Sola_Fide]

All consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

I'm not against the idea of consentual contracts, I'm against the idea that the government is the principal party in a socialized state marriage contract.

My position is private, yours is socialized. My position goes in the direction of taking the government out of marriage, your position expands involvment. I don't even know why this is an argument....

[Karsten]

Legalizing gay marriage does NOT mean more government! People who say this are only covering for their own social conservatism or religious fundamentalism!

That would be like saying legalizing marijuana means more government. Sure, it would mean more licences and regulations, but that's better than what it is now: BANNED!

[Karsten]

Not exactly. Not having a business license prevents you from exercising a natural right you should be free to exercise anyway. Not having a marriage license doesn't keep you from exercising any natural right; it only keeps you from special government privileges that shouldn't exist at all. It's more like banning some groups of people from receiving welfare benefits.

OH, you mean like the right to be able to visit your spouse in a hospital???

[Karsten]

Not exactly. Not having a business license prevents you from exercising a natural right you should be free to exercise anyway. Not having a marriage license doesn't keep you from exercising any natural right; it only keeps you from special government privileges that shouldn't exist at all. It's more like banning some groups of people from receiving welfare benefits.

I guess Ron Paul is wrong is wrong when he proposes tax breaks/credits for certain people. Since taxes shouldn't exist at all, then it's all simply special government privileges! *sarcasm*

[Karsten]

What people should be mindful of, is that it was the left-wing, almost militant, homosexual agenda that is hard-line egalitarian and socialist that ultimately pushed this bill through. They have a strong hate for traditionalists or conservatives, and will only tolerate Republicans to the extent that they shut-up, or support their Agenda. They constantly push for education about homosexuality in school, demand protected class status and are skilled in playing the victim card. They are NO friends of liberty, and should be opposed at every step. If you make a point that they can find a way to take personally, they will shout you down with an abundance of hatred.


Ever been to an anti-war rally? If we're supposed to never associate with leftists, better drop our principled anti-war stances as well!

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm not against the idea of consentual contracts, I'm against the idea that the government is the principal party in a socialized state marriage contract.

My position is private, yours is socialized. My position goes in the direction of taking the government out of marriage, your position expands involvment. I don't even know why this is an argument....

I've said this numerous times. It isn't difficult to understand. The government has no place in marriage except to enforce contracts between consenting persons.

As it stands, your position cedes power to the State, to deny and grant benefits upon groups of its choosing. My position within the framework of a flawed practice would neutralize that issue.

But yeah, keep wailing about socialism and being dishonest.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The government banning gays from getting a marriage license is identical to if the government banned black people from getting a business license. Sure, we libertarians would like to do away with government licensing altogether, but so long as the government does license stuff, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

No, because no gender is exclusive to any specific race. Your argument fails. Hard.

[Southron]

Legalizing gay marriage does NOT mean more government! People who say this are only covering for their own social conservatism or religious fundamentalism!

That would be like saying legalizing marijuana means more government. Sure, it would mean more licences and regulations, but that's better than what it is now: BANNED!

I'm getting married in a couple months . Regardless of whether the
State of NC recognized the union between me and my wife I would still consider myself married.

My vows will be binding, not because of some legal contract, but because I make them before God.

If homosexuals were truly confident in their "marriage" then they shouldn't need the blessing of their State.

[Echoes]

I'm getting married in a couple months . Regardless of whether the
State of NC recognized the union between me and my wife I would still consider myself married.

My vows will be binding, not because of some legal contract, but because I make them before God.

If homosexuals were truly confident in their "marriage" then they shouldn't need the blessing of their State.

Spot on.

They NEED the State to give them an aura of legitimacy. Without the State, so called gay 'marriage' would fall flat on it's face (like it has for thousands of yrs).

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I'm getting married in a couple months . Regardless of whether the
State of NC recognized the union between me and my wife I would still consider myself married.

My vows will be binding, not because of some legal contract, but because I make them before God.

If homosexuals were truly confident in their "marriage" then they shouldn't need the blessing of their State.
It's all about money. Abuses with employee benefits is imminent.

[ronaldo23]

Science says this? Really?

And disagreeing with that is bigoted hate speech?

Ron seems to disagree with the notion that homosexuality is necessarily "immoral," and he argues his science background has led him to have this nuanced stance. It's sort of funny in this interview to watch Ron cringe as the interviewer tries to bait Ron into agreeing with his homophobic positions and Ron is having none of it.

Ron states in clear words that as a physician, his medical background of science puts him in a position to not be judgemental on the morality of homosexuality, and that it is a complex issue for him to say homosexuality is "wrong" like you do.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

[madfoot]

I'm not against the idea of consentual contracts, I'm against the idea that the government is the principal party in a socialized state marriage contract.

My position is private, yours is socialized. My position goes in the direction of taking the government out of marriage, your position expands involvment. I don't even know why this is an argument....

There is literally nothing socialist about marriage.

Statist, yes. But unless you're an an-cap, statism isn't inherently evil. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that tax breaks and special privileges for people who love each other very much is a bad thing. And when I say special privileges, I don't mean welfare; I mean being able to see your spouse in the hospital when he/she is dying.


No, because no gender is exclusive to any specific race. Your argument fails. Hard.

He wasn't equating them, he was comparing them. There is no fundamental distinction between denying interracial marriage and denying gay marriage, because there is no argument for either that stands up to scrutiny.


I'm getting married in a couple months . Regardless of whether the
State of NC recognized the union between me and my wife I would still consider myself married.

My vows will be binding, not because of some legal contract, but because I make them before God.

If homosexuals were truly confident in their "marriage" then they shouldn't need the blessing of their State.

They need the "blessings of the state" because of all the rights that special contract grants that they can't get otherwise. If you want to ban marriage, work out a preferable alternative, and then campaign for that.

[madfoot]

What people should be mindful of, is that it was the left-wing, almost militant, homosexual agenda that is hard-line egalitarian and socialist that ultimately pushed this bill through.
I wasn't aware egalitarianism is a bad thing. I thought we weren't socialists because socialism is inherently anti-egalitarianism. Am I wrong there?

And what the fuck is a "homosexual agenda"?

[idirtify]

The divorce rate among heteros implies that they detest marriage - until ***** come along and want to partake. Then they act like the child who cries and fights when another kid picks up the toy they previously threw down; or the dog that growls at another for sniffing his food, even though he cannot possibly eat any more. Wouldn’t it be funny if the ***** were actually better than the heteros at staying married?

[Southron]

They need the "blessings of the state" because of all the rights that special contract grants that they can't get otherwise. If you want to ban marriage, work out a preferable alternative, and then campaign for that.

Ban marriage? How about ban marriage licenses? I don't think we should encourage marriage by offering benefits. That just contributes to the divorce rate.

[madfoot]

Ban marriage? How about ban marriage licenses? I don't think we should encourage marriage by offering benefits. That just contributes to the divorce rate.

Literally is against hospital visitation rights.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Here's a good article for some of you to read.

New York is No Hero
Posted by David S. D'Amato on Jun 26, 2011
http://c4ss.org/content/7598

“New York,” reports BBC News, “has become the sixth and most populous US state to allow same-sex marriage.” After the bill passed the New York legislature, the state’s Governor Andrew Cuomo made the bill law with his signature, prompting local Catholic bishops to describe the law as an attempt to “redefine [the] cornerstones of civilization.”

New York’s new law reignites the contentious issue of same-sex marriage and provides an occasion to reconsider some of the arguments of both sides. Since the application of the market anarchist prohibition against the use of force may seem to be difficult on this issue, it’s necessary to heed the practical nuances of what “gay marriage” actually means.

Though there has been a significant overlap between them, the two spheres and denotations of “marriage” have always remained discrete as within society. Even before gay marriage was “legalized,” warranting recognition from the state, individual churches, for example, went ahead and settled upon their own practices regarding who could be joined in holy matrimony.

In many ways, then, the controversy over gay marriage in the United States has never been about marriage in and of itself, about whether or not extra-governmental social groups like churches would be allowed to marry same-sex couples. To the extent that the critiques of same-sex marriage fall short of urging for the illegality of strictly religious or social practices, their worries about the “undermining marriage and the family” are red herrings.

No one anywhere close to the mainstream of the marriage debate has ever suggested that something like a commitment ceremony, existing outside the purview of the state, ought to be outlawed. The controversy therefore isn’t so much about marriage — at least not in any holistic sense — as it is about a certain very specific set of legal rights granted by the state.

When considering the issue, we must take great care to preserve in our arguments the distinction between spiritual or religious senses of marriage and “civil marriage,” the important legal benefits that emanate from a marriage license. As a matter of principle, market anarchists would like to free marriage altogether from the coercive clutches of the state, to erase the entire arbitrary, state-created legal framework around wedlock.

Autonomous adults ought to be able to marry or not marry whomever they choose and to enter into whatever kinds of consensual relationships they’re inclined toward without the aggression of the state acting as referee. A question thus arises as to why a market anarchist would advocate for gay marriage instead of against state involvement.

But the two positions aren’t mutually exclusive, and, given the special benefits allowed to married couples, notions of legal fairness — i.e., fairness under the law — require the extension of civil marriage to gays. Ideally, of course, society wouldn’t exist inside of a scaffolding of special privilege that completely weaves marriage into every layer of rules about things like taxes, property and health care rights.

Insofar as society does occupy such a scheme, however, philosophical anarchism does not demand that homosexuals be relegated to second-class citizens. While I have no use for the Constitution or its Equal Protection Clause, a stateless society built on voluntary exchange and cooperation would be, by definition, a society founded on the moral principle of equality.

As long as the state is issuing a legal instrument that entitles its holders to a host of very valuable legal protections and perks, it’s untenable to suggest that gays ought to be denied those rights on the basis of the claim that no one should be accorded them. Market anarchists would not ignore the subtlety of the question before us by insisting that any lengthening of the state’s reach falls on the wrong side of a bright line rule.

Even assuming that we did insist on such a rule, it isn’t at all clear that denying gays the right to a civil marriage isn’t more statist in that it unfairly encumbers gays with what are actually legal handicaps. The State of New York deserves no applause or adulation for what is has done. Though the state treats it as such, basic human dignity is something we’re born with, not something that rulers give us.

I realize not everyone here is an anarchist, but I think the article presents a compelling case for this law without ascribing any special praises to New York for doing so.

[1836]

This issue is boring because the solution is simple. I know plenty of gay people and have nothing against them, but I personally believe gay marriage is wrong. That said, why should anybody care?

Ron Paul is right: get government out of marriage. Unfortunately he does not lay out an exact plan of doing that (or I have not seen one), but I have always figured that if the government simply issued blank civil partnership certificates, that a church or organization or whatnot could put their mark on it as a kind of marriage.

That, or treat everyone as individuals in the tax code and get rid of all government discrimination between couples and individuals, then you really could have voluntary marriage from organizations.

[inibo]

treat everyone as individuals in the tax code and get rid of all government discrimination between couples and individuals
^-This

[specsaregood]

Literally is against hospital visitation rights.

Well I'm pretty sure that is up to each hospital's own rules, not law. Even then I'm pretty sure a private contract such as power of attorney could guarantee visitation "rights".