Is this intended as a joke? I have to confess I fail to follow your post at all, which is no doubt my fault.

No joke. I have no idea why this is confusing to you. A lawful marriage, even when no children are involved, confers a broad array of legal and pecuniary rights on the spouse. Without a legal marriage, those rights or benefits are not automatically conferred, and in many cases cannot be.

Here's an example: Jim (70) and Betty (68) are married. Jim was injured in Vietnam and could never have his own biological children. Jim retired as the principal of a high school in Nashville, TN. Betty worked as a retail clerk. They don't have a lot of savings. However, Jim has a guaranteed pension which pays him $10,000 a month, which they live on. The pension continues until Jim's death, but passes on to his wife for the rest of her life, if Jim dies first.... Unexpectedly, Jim becomes very sick and is hospitalized. Betty visits him every day in the hospital. Jim didn't want any kind of feeding tubes, and Betty respects that wish. In a few weeks, Jim dies in peace... Betty continues on with the pension; and without a will or any written directives, can decide how Jim's body is dealt with and where his remains are buried.

Contrast that with example two: John (70) and Brad (68) are a long-time committed gay couple. John was injured in Vietnam and could never have his own biological children. John retired as the principal of a high school in Nashville, TN. Brad worked as a retail clerk. They don't have a lot of savings. However, John has a guaranteed pension which pays him $10,000 a month, which they live on. The pension continues until John's death, but cannot be passed on to Brad, because they were not legally wed.... Unexpectedly, John becomes very sick and is hospitalized. John's long-lost sister, Helga, shows up and says, "no one but family can see my brother in the hospital." Because they failed to write down a directive, Brad has no legal rights to visit John in his final days. Against John's spoken wishes, expressed only to Brad, Betty orders the doctors to keep John alive with feeding tubes and breathing machines as long as possible. After many terrible months, John finally dies... Brad then has no source of income, as he cannot keep the pension; and without a will or any written directives, Brad has no say in how John's body is dealt with and where his remains are buried. John's brother, Guido, flies into town, after not having seen John in 30 years, claims the corpse, and decides John should be frozen next to Ted Williams. Brad has no legal right to object.

Are you clear now, Alou?

If you believe that gays make just as good parents as... well, I'm not allowed to say "normal people" but you know what I mean...

You believe you mean that "heterosexual" is equivalent to "normal" (in this instance). Why not type "heterosexual" instead? It's only six letters longer, and you don't have to write additional words to lessen the sting of words that some may find insulting.

Is "brown-eyed" equivalent to "normal?" Would you ever distinguish between "blue-eyed," "green-eyed," and "normal-eyed" people? If not, why not here?

Of course, you may believe -- and I'm no biologist so I won't say you're wrong for believing this -- that homosexuality is entirely "chosen" or at least "nurtured." I'm not sure the use of "normal" in such a case wouldn't also be problematic, though I will admit that examples why don't leap as immediately to my mind.

You got any evidence or cites of this retro? No, of course not. But hey, let's just make stuff up, why not.

That was my post.

See, I knew you weren't going to put me on the ignore list.

For a primer, the Wikipedia page on the history of same sex unions is useful.

It includes links and references to some of the historical scholarship; another site it links to gives a primer on same sex unions in non-Western cultures.

Andrew Sullivan of course wrote a book advocating gay marriage several years ago; he also edited an anthology of writing about same-sex marriage that includes this passage:

One of the recurring clichés of the same-sex marriage debate is that the very notion of such a thing is a radical departure from anything entertained before in human history. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. In many cultures and in many eras, the issue has emerged-and the themes of the arguments are quirkily similar. Same-sex love, as Plato's Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love, and the question of how it is recognized and understood has bedeviled every human civilization. In most, it has never taken the form of the modern institution of marriage, but in some, surprisingly, it has. In seventeenth-century China and nineteenth-century Africa, for example, the institution seems identical to opposite-sex marriage. In other cultures (see the debate between Brent Shaw and Ralph Hexter) the meaning of same-sex unions remains opaque and complex. In Native American society, marriage between two men was commonplace, but its similarity to contemporary lesbian and gay marriages is far from evident. And today in a number of foreign countries, laws extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples have been or will soon be enacted. Judge for yourself what this might mean for our current convulsion. One thing emerges clearly: this issue is not a modern invention. The need to balance human dignity and social norms is as old as civilization itself. Although much of the past history of this debate has been buried until recently, it has begun to emerge again with all the passion that now crackles through modern Western culture.

Only in your world, retro-shiite, is replying to a direct quote slaying a strawman. If you look, the exchange went as follows:

AlouGoodbye: And so marriage becomes a less serious thing for everyone.

Crosbybird: Why is this a good or a bad thing?

AlouGoodbye: If you think that's actually a good thing, I'm not going to try and talk you out of it.

To Rich - I can see how there are certain benefits attendant to marriage*. I fail to see how you get

In cases where children are not an issue, the only reason [italics mine] a couple (gay or straight) would need to lawfully marry is for the spousal benefits in [certain] matters.

I generally fail to understand your post. As I understand it you are suggesting that some traditional marriages aren't good for bringing up children (true) and that we can imagine that some homosexual couples might be better environment (true). You then suggest that we should revoke the marriage licences of the "bad" traditional marriages or allow the "good" homosexual couples to marry (how does this follow? I am not suggesting the purpose of marriage is having children. Are you?) and further suggest giving the taking the children away from their parents and giving them to the gay couple (on whose authority!). You further suggest that now we have taken the children from their parents and given them to the gay couple, that it's vital to allow the gay couple to marry to stablilise the children's new home (???). You then go on to the strange quote above. Apologies but I remain utterly confused.

Robert - I'm not stupid. I used the term because I'm one against many, people are taking a lot of shots against me, so I figure I may as well get a couple back.

*Although I really think these are a sideshow and the real issue is about "equality."

One other point on this: the notion that marriage itself has been some sort of immutable institution, even in Western society, is faulty. Just take as one example the idea that romantic love is a required pre-cursor to marriage. Marriage as a business arrangement has a far longer history than marriage as a statement of enduring love between man and woman, both in Western and non-Western societies. But we don't do that anymore in Western society, do we?

Same-sex love, as Plato's Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love

I was taught in Greek philosophy that ancient Greeks would've seen Agathon, as portrayed by Plato, as pathetic. Man-boy same-sex love was laudable, but at some point the boy was supposed to become the man in another relationship.

I'm one against many, people are taking a lot of shots against me, so I figure I may as well get a couple back.

The Loneliness of the Long Distance Bigot.

ALOU: "I fail to see how you get"

RICH: "In cases where children are not an issue, the only reason a couple (gay or straight) would need to lawfully marry is for the spousal benefits in [certain] matters."

The emphasis is on "need." If a couple wants to have the various accrued legal benefits of marriage, the parties need to be married (in many instances).

"You then suggest that we should revoke the marriage licences of the 'bad' traditional marriages or allow the "good" homosexual couples to marry (how does this follow?"

I never suggested that. Never. Not even approximately. This is exactly what I asked of you, but did not say I favored: "And if you will only sanction a relationship which meets all four conditions, then do you revoke the marriage licenses of those who don't meet them?"

This is a worthy question of you. Because if your principal point is that a gay marriage is sub-optimal and therefore is not due lawful sanction, then why are YOU sanctioning straight marriages which are clearly worse for kids than some gay unions?

"I am not suggesting the purpose of marriage is having children. Are you?)"

I think that legal marriage (as opposed to a religious marriage) is in large part, though not wholely, for the benefit of dependents: children and (historically) wives. By binding a couple together in a legal contract, husbands/fathers cannot just pick up and leave without repercussion. Marriage creates greater stability than shacking up does, insofar as a higher cost of separation is imposed and paternity is lawfully recognized. And that stability is beneficial to the union and the dependents.

However, there are other benefits of marriage which accrue to couples without kids, as I demonstrated with my John/Brad and Jim/Betty examples.

"... and further suggest giving the taking the children away from their parents and giving them to the gay couple (on whose authority!)."

I never said anything like this. You are jumping to strange and terribly wrong conclusions, Alou.

"You further suggest that now we have taken the children from their parents and given them to the gay couple, that it's vital to allow the gay couple to marry to stablilise the children's new home (???)."

Please, I never said anything like this. It's one thing to argue with what I said or inferred. But it's quite another to make up stuff out of whole cloth, as all of your arguments with me are.

"*Although I really think these are a sideshow and the real issue is about 'equality.'"

Because examples like the John/Brad case happen every day, they are not a side show to them. I would think it decent of you to have compassion for couples who face these issues. They are very common. Imagine if your wife were ill and dying in the hospital and some unknown blood relative of hers had all rights to make all decisions in your place, and you could not even visit her. Imagine if your wife were old or infirm and financially dependent on you, but you could not lawfully leave your pension to her (while all of your colleagues could leave their pensions to their spouses); and therefore she was painfully penniless upon your passing.

Robert - I'm not stupid. I used the term because I'm one against many, people are taking a lot of shots against me, so I figure I may as well get a couple back.

It was intentionally designed to wound? Hmm. Well, to each their own. I can understand why you may feel attacked, but I can't admit to being very empathetic towards getting "a couple back," (though again that likely speaks to my Quaker upbringing, and I do understand that others' mileage may vary).

Anyway, your words seemed more likely to "attack" homosexuals, who are not necessarily the only people (possibly even any of the people -- how would I know?) who you feel to be attacking you here. If you have nothing against homosexuals, why deliberately choose words that would marginalize them? Again, it may speak to my upbringing, but I don't understand the good that could come from that particular word choice which you (seem to) admit was deliberately chosen so as to "get a couple back." If others are pissing in the thread's water supply, why should you want to do so as well?

This is a worthy question of you. Because if your principal point is that a gay marriage is sub-optimal and therefore is not due lawful sanction, then why are YOU sanctioning straight marriages which are clearly worse for kids than some gay unions?

No, my principal point is that sanctioning gay marriage is a revolutionary change to the cornerstone of society, and as such should only be considered if there is the strongest possible evidence of very large benefits. My secondary point is that sanctioning gay marriage will in fact not only not have benefits, but it will do substantial harm to the sanctity (in a secular sense) of marriage. The children issue is there too, but it's not the main deal.

why are YOU sanctioning straight marriages which are clearly worse for kids than some gay unions?

Well I'm not sanctioning anything. But to the extent that I do approve of this, firstly I don't think the purpose of marriage is necessarily to have children, and secondly you can't know that the marriage is going to be a bad one going in. More generally if you're suggesting that couples should be required by law to have counselling before getting married as to the responsibilities etc they are undertaking, I think that's probably a good idea.

I never said anything like this. You are jumping to strange and terribly wrong conclusions, Alou.

...Please, I never said anything like this. It's one thing to argue with what I said or inferred. But it's quite another to make up stuff out of whole cloth, as all of your arguments with me are.

I made up nothing out of whole cloth. You wrote "Do you remove the children from those homes? Do you benefit children by destabilizing the home (by not allowing the parents [by which I assume you mean the gay couple] to lawfully marry)?" I actually give you more credit than you realise because what it seems to mean to me doesn't seem at all right, so rather than assuming that you're talking some weird stuff I assume I've misunderstood you. If you really think I'm deliberately misrepresenting you I can only apologise, but I remind you that I have not argued with your post but rather asked for clarification of my own confusion. If you think I "always" do this to you then I really don't know what to say, because although your name is familiar and I'm pretty sure you're a Giants fan, I can't recall a single discussion I've ever had with you.

Because examples like the John/Brad case happen every day, they are not a side show to them. I would think it decent of you to have compassion for couples who face these issues. They are very common.

But I do feel sympathy for people like that. Of course, I'm probably going to quibble with the details, because the pension business is a contractual matter with the insurer and not really the government's business, and I wonder how often your hospital scenario happens, and I definitely don't approve of euthanasia, and so on. Just because there's suffering doesn't mean there's injustice. But I've definitely got sympathy for the suffering. And in fact it is to a large extent because of these kind of scenarios that I used to support civil unions. I thought that civil unions would remedy these kinds of alleged injustices, and shut up the gay rights activists. We've given you what you want, now go away.

Well of course I was horribly wrong. Gay people started saying that their civil unions were marriages. And it didn't shut the gay rights activists up, it just made them louder. Seeing one concession they just wanted more and more. And now they have used civil unions as a Trojan Horse in California to get marriage too. There is no limit to the demands of greedy minority activists and their Democrat enablers. So now I'm afraid I oppose civil unions, and yeah that might be bad for John and Brad, but if they have a problem with that they should blame the gay rights protestors who have made any kind of compromise impossible.

Robert - I wasn't seeking to offend homosexuals, nor would that make much sense, because AFAIK everyone here is heterosexual. The only gay people (AFAIK) on this site are Answer Guy and Sam M., neither of whom are participating in this conversation. Besides which both of whom are far too polite to call people names etc, and I have no problem with either - although I do think Sam is loony about Mets prospects. But if some people take such pride in taking offense that they react with shock! horror! when I use normal as the opposite of gay, I figure I may as well keep it up.

Anyway I'm off now to my Unabomber-style shack to pray to my graven image of Ann Coulter.

Rich - I know I've disagreed and clashed with you on a number of topics, so I wanted to make this especially clear: I find your defense of gay couples, marriage, and gay civil unions to be a joy to read. Thank you. I have a great respect for your position and for YOU regarding these topics.

For the first time in Lassus's adult lifetime, he is really proud of Rich.

if some people take such pride in taking offense that they react with shock! horror! when I use normal as the opposite of gay, I figure I may as well keep it up.

Your sense of etiquette regarding contributions to a group is definitely different than my own. You seem to be going out of your way to hurt people in order to teach them some sort of lesson. Do people you hurt really seem more inclined to learn lessons? (Sometimes, perhaps, but I'm not sure you're not going to it too quickly here).

Let's put aside the idea that you deliberately chose words designed to... if not offend or hurt, at least antagonize certain people. Whether or not Sam or anyone else is too "polite" to say anything in response to implicitly called... what, "abnormal" or at least "not normal," do you really think it should not be offensive to him or someone else to be called that? (Especially given the context wherein the quality that is considered "normal" by you also seems to be preferred -- neither Marilyn Vos Savant nor Pedro Guerrero would likely be described as possessing "normal" intelligence, but one of them might be insulted to be described that way anywhere but in a court of law. Might not too).

A final tack: you seem to be saying, "these words shouldn't hurt, and anyone that they would hurt, well, I'm glad I hurt them." Given that you're not the person in the position of potentially being offended by the words you chose, are you really in the best position to say what should or should not offend them? (I've said "Come on, that shouldn't hurt," to other people before too, but barring someone means of my feeling exactly what they're feeling, how the heck should I know to what extent they feel pain? Someone once tried to give me a practical demonstration of what a migraine would feel like; I'm very glad I was able to empathize before they completed the demonstration. It's not that I haven't had headaches, but what I call headaches and what they call headaches are only the same in kind, not in effect).

Is this Alou guy for real? Wow, if so.

You seem to be going out of your way to hurt people in order to teach them some sort of lesson.

Part of the problem, Bob, is that people felt the need to shout him down and call him a bigot instead of simply engaging him on the good-faith arguments he was making. The words he uses are his own responsibility, but attacking him and calling him names doesn't really further a productive discussion.

I don't disagree, Ray. AlouGoodbye has shown courage in defending what was likely to be an unpopular idea here, and I respect that. I also respect (what I perceive to be -- others may disagree) his/her genuine effort to argue his/her position along intellectual grounds (i.e., so far as I can tell, s/he has avoided religious, faith-based, first-principle-and-thus-inarguable explanations for his/her position). There are few people in this world who can remain calm, rational, and unemotional while arguing these difficult and very personal ideas, especially in the face of great opposition. I would as lief that such patience on AlouGoodbye's part be rewarded by similar patience and respect on the part of those arguing the other side.

Or, since some people arguing against him/her might well argue that s/he is not showing others proper respect in articulating the sorts of arguments that make them call him/her a bigot, I would prefer they show AlouGoodbye even more respect than they perceive him/her to be showing them. ("I will not sink to your level" kind of thing). I understand that others' mileage may vary, but I would prefer the posters not become blinded to each others' arguments for the sake of "eye for an eye" reactions to perceived and/or actual gestures of disrespect.

Wow, we had to replace our router today. What an ordeal...in the meantime my fantasy team tanked...

the traditional Native American conception of private property

RR, I didn't mean to imply there was just one conception...just to be clear...

Robert- these are all legitimate issues to debate around ADA. But first:
if we can debate them, then why is David's position out-and-out wrong?

Because it is rooted in the first principle that no one can set standards within which the business must operate.

But if a line may be drawn, who is to determine where it is drawn? It would appear you would suggest "the community" (rather than the owner of the restaurant), but doesn't that invite a tyranny of the majority?

I think, in this specific instance, that there should be a mediating authority to which restaurant patrons, restaurant workers, and restaurant owners are bound by to regulate and mediate when there are conflicts of interest. I'd also be in favor of the federal and/or state government contributing tax money to defray some of the renovation costs, but I don't think that the solves the problem for some here b/c they believe taxation=slavery in the first place. I don't think that the owner's assertion of their absolute right to control "their" restaurant should trump all other concerns. The rights of the property-holder don't trump all other rights; especially when the distribution of property in a society is uneven, this means that those who hold the most property have the most rights. I don't agree with this both in principle and in practice. The interests of the patrons, the workers and the owners are different, but that does not mean it should be based strictly on everyone advocating for their own self-interests. There should be mutual recognition of the other parties' interests, rather than one party simply banging their fist demanding that everyone at the table recognize their arbitrary first principle. In this respect, I am somewhat sympathetic to Habermas (who is German- I'm not sure if that makes David OK with him since the French seem to cause him the most problems) and the idea of discourse oriented toward consensus-building. To the extent that there will always be conflict when there's interaction between subjects, systems of mutual interdependence are inevitable and such systems would break down if everyone "took their ball and went home" whenever things did not break their way. The person with the ball may be equal in theory to the person who provides the glove, or the field, or the bases, but in practice real inequalities will emerge the lead to the person with the more scare resource dominating the person with the less scarce one, unless there are checks put in place on that domination. This is why the definitions of property, of who has a legitimate claim to what, and what constitutes a legitimate claim in the first place, cannot be taken for granted.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that the right to access trump all other considerations. There can be a balance between interests that need not involve the terrible ADA making a mom and pop store sewing machine store on the third floor of a 70 year old building add an elevator. A lot of the disabled people I know have resigned themselves to the fact that 3/4 of the time, they just have to deal with the fact that they won't be able to go someplace because it has been built in such a way as to be inaccessible to them. Writing letters about ADA violations isn't really an enjoyable pasttime. It's way more frequent that you'll just shrug your shoulders and move onto the next place than to make a huge deal with the ADA about every place with 4 stairs up instead of a ramp. I don't remember who said it, but one thing that stuck with me is the idea that you can tell how advanced a society is by how they treat their disabled population. And a lot of disabled people are struck by that when they come here. In America, we've gotten very good about this in the past 20-30 years, making it a priority to integrate them as full members of society. And the law goes a long way toward this- the institutional socialization accomplished by the ADA tells people that we value them as contributors to this society, just like formal political equality (one person, one vote) socializes us to think that we all have a voice that counts and deserves to be heard (and results in everyone wanting to text their vote to American Idol, but whatever...).

David, it's obvious you can't see beyond the limits of your language, so I guess it's pointless to continue the discussion. Of course if you assume 100% equality between the parties, ignoring all external factors, assume that the contract between the two parties doesn't involve coercion, ect, ect, IOW, if you assume that all parties submit to your very specific way of defining these terms, then everything's peachy. But again, you're doing so in the face of a lot of other competing definitions for these terms, erasing the history of where the property came from in the first place ignoring what may be real circumstances that impinge upon the autonomy of the subjects in question, and a lot of these definitions are mobilized as such in order to protect the self-interest of those defining them. Masking their origins or placing their definitions beyond question is an ideological tactic. You are of course free to deny that power circulates in language ("discourse") and ghettoize Foucault to academia, but these ideas are widely and successfully used in ground-level identity politics, as we've seen in the discussion around same-sex marriage.

Robert, thanks for your calming influence and perspective in this thread.

BTF never sleeps...

I don't recall a thread with so many simultaneous topics: Gay marriage; wheelchair access; presidential politics and the 1964 PA law; all coming and going like characters in a play, and for the most part argued with respect for the other POV.

I wonder how many of us realize just how rare this sort of thing is on the web. I'm genuinely impressed.

And while my own position on gay marriage (it doesn't hurt anyone, so what's the big deal?) is much cruder and less historically grounded than the complex mini-treatises I've been reading, I do want to defend Alou. Not because I agree with his bottom line---far from it---but because he's defended a "conservative" position in what I'd consider to be the classical "conservative" way: By making an honest appeal to our own society's tradition and values, and by arguing the necessity to show a demonstrated consensual desire for change before jumping into such a radical concept.

And let's not fool ourselves: Gay marriage IS a radical concept, in the common meaning of the term. The fact that it has precedence in other societies is really neither here nor there in terms of how most Americans view it. Arkitektron's historically grounded view of conservatism has always struck me as entirely defensible, but Alou's competing view, based on the values of our own society's practices, is also a legitimate one. Anyone familiar with George Nash's seminal work on modern conservative thought realizes that there's plenty of room for argument as to what constitutes "conservatism," and that to the extent that conservatives encourage this debate, to that extent they thrive.

But perhaps unlike Alou, I'm also pretty confident that our rapidly growing Big Tent of a society is constantly making adjustments based on this innocent question: If it's not hurting you, or anyone, why are you making it such a big deal? Don't you realize that the pain you're causing a sizeable minority of our fellow human beings is infinitely more real and concrete than whatever damage might be done by simply allowing them to live their own lives as they wish? This question applied in 1964, and IMO it applies today.

And to Alou himself I'd ask one question:

Regardless of your personal views on this subject, as a conservative (and note the lack of quotation marks around that word) don't you see that this gradual societal acceptance---which has been almost dialectically advanced by the back and forth tug of competing court decisions, state laws, lobbying on both sides, boycotts on both sides, growing self-assertion, evolving public tolerance, etc., etc.---as being a quintessentially American way to coming to a consensus on an issue?

I'm not saying that the issue is settled by any means, because today there are still two competing philosophies, neither of which has totally won over a firm consensus. In 2008 this still mostly comes down to what part of the country you're in.

But again, forgetting for a minute the merits of gay marriage, isn't this precisely how great issues should be settled in a representative democracy? Isn't this process something that an American conservative should be proud of?

No, my principal point is that sanctioning gay marriage is a revolutionary change to the cornerstone of society, and as such should only be considered if there is the strongest possible evidence of very large benefits. My secondary point is that sanctioning gay marriage will in fact not only not have benefits, but it will do substantial harm to the sanctity (in a secular sense) of marriage.

You keep asserting this, but have provided exactly zero evidence to either end.

and for the most part argued with respect for the other POV.

What am I doing wrong, Andy?

Man-boy same-sex love was laudable, but at some point the boy was supposed to become the man in another relationship.

Yeah but converting from catcher to pitcher is always a tough transition, maybe the toughest of any position switch.

Regardless of your personal views on this subject, as a conservative (and note the lack of quotation marks around that word) don't you see that this gradual societal acceptance---which has been almost dialectically advanced by the back and forth tug of competing court decisions, state laws, lobbying on both sides, boycotts on both sides, growing self-assertion, evolving public tolerance, etc., etc.---as being a quintessentially American way to coming to a consensus on an issue?

Given that "consensus" refers to literally everyone's agreeing, and given that I think there may be no side of any issue with which every citizen of the US would agree, I think "consensus" is a word with which others will disagree with your overall point. Perhaps "agreement" (which I think may allow for more exceptions than "consensus") might be better, or perhaps another word.

Ignoring the word and getting at what I think you mean (and I may have this wrong, for which I apologize), that gradual acceptance of an idea occurs after a lot of back-and-forth rancor and disagreement, both legal/formal and local/casual, and is typically American... I dunno. Sounds worthy of consideration. Makes it sound like "progress" (or "change" if we want a word that is not necessarily so anti-tradition) in the US is just one never-ending performance of Fiddler on the Roof, with a never-ending line of daughters fighting to erase traditions and Tevye fighting harder and harder to accommodate both his love for them, his desire to support them as intelligent, individually-minded human beings, and his strong sense that each and every change is something that fundamentally attacks the pillars on which rest his entire sense of place within the world. Is there a "daughter" who might ask too much? Dunno that either. I think the musical would argue that the unity of the love/support of Tevye's family is the actual tradition without which nothing (and so long as that remains, all will remain well or well enough, albeit often troubled), but I can see other interpretations of the musical and I can certainly recognize that even if I interpret the musical's view correctly, the musical is not necessarily correct, either for Tevye or for society.

Food for thought, Andy, thanks. I think I share your appreciation for how this thread has remained mostly very civil while dealing with some weighty/personal ideas. I dunno about "America," but I myself like having (what I think are) my views challenged and think I grow from such exchanges (and from watching others's views challenged in such exchanges).

EDITED for clarity

Not because I agree with his bottom line---far from it---but because he's defended a "conservative" position in what I'd consider to be the classical "conservative" way: By making an honest appeal to our own society's tradition and values, and by arguing the necessity to show a demonstrated consensual desire for change before jumping into such a radical concept.

And I would agree, even with the little barbs I have thrown in (C'mon, him saying that no woman would ever want to marry him was classic :P)...

But apologize for my lack of respect in my responses (no qualifiers, 100%) as Alou deserves that.

However, there's this:

Regardless of your personal views on this subject, as a conservative (and note the lack of quotation marks around that word) don't you see that this gradual societal acceptance---which has been almost dialectically advanced by the back and forth tug of competing court decisions, state laws, lobbying on both sides, boycotts on both sides, growing self-assertion, evolving public tolerance, etc., etc.---as being a quintessentially American way to coming to a consensus on an issue?

This creates rewards an inherently unequal and negative dynamic where people are those with privilege are encouraged to take for granted their own opportunities and rights and then screen others' access to the same rights and opportunities.

Such gatekeeping may be, as you say, eminently necessary, but we must acknowledge the corrosive and hazardous nature of the position. After all, to be the moderator on others' access to rights that I have already is inherently unequal and ripe for abuse.

Meanwhile, people's lives go by and we all lose for it.

When Josh Gibson was born, there was ample opportunity to for the country to allow him to work at the profession he did best. What has resulted in our deliberate speed at integration was the loss of historical context of one of the greatest, and perhaps the greatest ballplayer in the history of our union. That is immense. That is horrendous, and now consider how that pales in comparison to what has been lost in other arenas of society.

The view expressed by Alou is not crazy, and it probably doesn't deserve the spitting in its direction that it receives on this site. But let us make no mistake--for better or for worse, it is a textbook example of bigotry. That's not name-calling or intolerance of the argument, it's a simple fact.

We have a country rife with unhealthy families and unsafe environments for children. We refuse to equip a large group of people who appeal to the government for assistance in starting an official, governmentally recognized family the tools they need to succeed.

Then we complain that parents aren't doing the job they need to be.

Let's be perfectly clear--when a person is shamed into a heterosexual marriage because that's what society expects of them, that has a lasting and disastrous effect on the adults and children involved, their community and the institution of marriage.

When a person engages in a genuine marriage with a adult person or people they love in a thoughtful strategic manner, it has an opposite lasting effect on the same entities.

However, the government should not be empowered to do either of the following:
1) Deny those entering into it the union a right to make their own judgments are to their motives and suitability.

2) Do pants checks that the two people have some sanctioned "right parts" to enter the union.

To do so is a wide abuse of government power.

We can say this is radical and a shock to the system and it's true. The idea that people might have to wait their entire lifetimes and beyond for equal chances is also true.

However, the idea that it is a desirable state of affairs and that those denied rights (which in a collaborative society is all of us in a situation of inequality) should eagerly praise those gatekeepers seems to only encourage bigotry and inequality in the society.

After all, equality should never be an "era-adjusted" concept. And inequalities weaken the society, not only for those directly denied opportunities but for all of us.

Right now, the Josh Gibson of medicine may be waiting for a pair of wonderful, nurturing adoptive mothers or fathers, or sitting in an inner-city classroom thirsty for access to a stable learning environment or the resources necessary.

I realize on the former (more than many anti-gay marriage advocates do) such adoptions are already taking place in large magnitude. But why not equip those families with all they might need to provide her/him with a healthy home life?

"All deliberate speed" failed catastrophically on school integration. Why must we continue to peddle it when dealing with inequality on other social issues?

No, my principal point is that sanctioning gay marriage is a revolutionary change to the cornerstone of society, and as such should only be considered if there is the strongest possible evidence of very large benefits. My secondary point is that sanctioning gay marriage will in fact not only not have benefits, but it will do substantial harm to the sanctity (in a secular sense) of marriage. The children issue is there too, but it's not the main deal.

I'm sure you really believe this, and I respect that. But if you are going to play the gatekeeper role while demand immense evidence of the positive impact of someone's large life decision, shouldn't you at least offer that everyone else do the same?

Why shouldn't my wife and I have had to prove to gay couples and society in general that we weren't going to mess up marriage as an institution?

Weddings had to have been invented by a gay guy.

why shouldn't polygamy be allowed (so long as all participants are considered "consenting adults" for whatever that means to you. For that matter, why shouldn't "incest" (again, "consenting adults" is assumed here) be allowed? (Robert Machemer in #4857)

This is one of the rare times I agree with DMN (post #4867): [polygamy is] not a stable arrangement for a society.

Post #4925 continued, as somehow it got posted midsentence ...

I don't think that polygamy happens very often without involving some kind of coercion. All kinds of multiple sexual relationships exist, sure, but generally involve well-separated households. But true polygamy, which is almost always some kind of patriarchal polygyny, requires a patriarchal society that, as DMN points out, is pretty antithetical to free liberal-capitalist societies, and only happens on the very fringes of ours. At those fringes (and DMN might disagree with this), I think it usually does involve coercion of women.

Incest between consenting adults is a grey area. First-cousin marriages are legal in some states and not in others, suggesting that "incest" is to some extent a product of "discourse," not a natural and obvious thing. True consensual relationships between brother and sister, or parent and son or daughter, undoubtedly happen once in a while. Should they be sanctioned by law in a truly free country? Do people actually ever want to marry a brother or sister? These are interesting questions, but again they are rather fringy questions. The incidence of truly consensual brother-sister or parent-grown-child incest is probably lower than even that of voter fraud :)

Edited for clarity

A question for any of the libertarians out there... is there a systematic stance on intellectual property rights? How would things like copyright, trademark and patent protection work in a libertarian society?

I'm currently reading Larry Lessig's The Future of Ideas where he talks a lot about how a free commons of non-rivalrous goods can foster innovation and I was wondering how that vision meshed with the libertarian view.

(Plus, I figure a discussion on IP rights might give a boost to pass 5000)

I don't think that polygamy happens very often without involving some kind of coercion. All kinds of multiple sexual relationships exist, sure, but generally involve well-separated households. But true polygamy, which is almost always some kind of patriarchal polygyny, requires a patriarchal society that, as DMN points out, is pretty antithetical to free liberal-capitalist societies, and only happens on the very fringes of ours. At those fringes (and DMN might disagree with this), I think it usually does involve coercion of women.

Historically, I can totally grant that polygamy has not typically happened without some level of coercion. Having granted that, can you grant that it can happen without it? (Unlikely as it may be). And if it consenting adults desire it, does it harm "society" to allow those consenting adults to do it? Why should consenting adults not be free to take this particular action, so long as they are understood to be consenting (and feel free to make the definition of that as strict and exclusive as you want)? Yes, I see (plenty of) potential for abuse of the freedom, but is seeing the potential for abuse reason enough to prevent presumably responsible adults from doing it?

A few comments.

and for the most part argued with respect for the other POV.

What am I doing wrong, Andy?

Rooting for EEII, Kevin, though that's forgiven because of Carolina and the Celtics. But since you've refrained from calling for your archfoe's decapitation for at least the last 2000 posts, I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that. Though I'm still thankful for those Camden Yards metal detectors whenever I think of May 31st.

------------------------------------

Robert,

By "consensus" of course I don't mean unanimity, since I live in the real world and not a fantasy one. I mean enough of a consensus to satisfy a significant majority that whatever their best solution might be to the problem in question, they can live with the status quo.

Clearly even by this definition, no national consensus has yet been reached on the question of gay marriage. But what I do defend is the process by which we're trying to arrive at one. Insert Churchill quote about the virtue of democracy at this point. What is a better real world alternative? Right now the most practical course I can see is to vote as many right wing Republicans as possible into a nice long 40 year exile, starting in November.

------------------------------------

Regardless of your personal views on this subject, as a conservative (and note the lack of quotation marks around that word) don't you see that this gradual societal acceptance---which has been almost dialectically advanced by the back and forth tug of competing court decisions, state laws, lobbying on both sides, boycotts on both sides, growing self-assertion, evolving public tolerance, etc., etc.---as being a quintessentially American way to coming to a consensus on an issue?

This creates rewards an inherently unequal and negative dynamic where people are those with privilege are encouraged to take for granted their own opportunities and rights and then screen others' access to the same rights and opportunities.

Perhaps so---indisputably so. But these imbalances of power are in every society, and again, I'm not sure what a better alternative would be.

We're not going to settle these sorts of questions with guns.

A Supreme Court decision isn't going to do it, either, certainly not with the court we have now. And California and Massachusetts have little effect on Texas or Ohio.

So like it or not, we're stuck with the forces I cited above---competing court decisions, state laws, lobbying on both sides, boycotts on both sides, growing self-assertion, evolving public tolerance, etc., etc.---to work our way through.

No question that it's frustrating for those on the wrong end of the current status quo, but speaking as a 63-year old I can barely recognize this country today from the country of 1958, and it's changing by the minute. One of the many reasons I like Barack Obama is reflected in his criticism of Rev. Wright, when he faulted him for not recognizing that America is a dynamic society and not a static one. Which is about as heartfelt an expression of true American patriotism as I can imagine.

So I guess my bottom line is, as usual, a bit trite, but nevertheless, here it is:

People like Alou and Nieporent exist, and though their views may be questionable to you and me, they're every bit as honestly expressed as yours and mine, however disingenuous their reasoning often seems to be from our POV. And as long as their views hold sway (as Alou's still do in this case, though less and less each year), the only way you can effect change is by doing exactly what you're doing now: Working for change, and trying to persuade people who disagree. Again, that may be trite, but what's the alternative?

Of course as quiet as it's kept, when we win we'll drop all our pretenses and commence with the liquidations. But that's for a whole other thread.

No, my principal point is that sanctioning gay marriage is a revolutionary change to the cornerstone of society, and as such should only be considered if there is the strongest possible evidence of very large benefits. My secondary point is that sanctioning gay marriage will in fact not only not have benefits, but it will do substantial harm to the sanctity (in a secular sense) of marriage. The children issue is there too, but it's not the main deal.

These same sentences work for keeping slavery as an institution. E-X points out, IMO, a great sentence: ""All deliberate speed" failed catastrophically on school integration. Why must we continue to peddle it when dealing with inequality on other social issues?"

In reading these posts, I don't see an objective reason to oppose same-sex marriage. AFAICT, none exists. It seems to me be simply be the rights of all.

By "consensus" of course I don't mean unanimity, since I live in the real world and not a fantasy one. I mean enough of a consensus to satisfy a significant majority

I understood what you meant, I think. The word doesn't mean that to a Quaker. Most Quaker communities, no matter how large, are (to my understanding) still run by consensus. No more than you do, I don't think that's practical in the real world. I was just suggesting a different word might be more appropriate. "Enough of a consensus" clangs in my ears like "mostly dead," "sorta pregnant," and "very unique." "Majority" is a good enough word to use. If it's not inclusive enough, "supermajority" works, I think. So would "near unaninimity." Heck, I got no problem with your coining a new phrase, "extreme supermegamajority," which can be used for those instances when everyone but David Nieporent (or whomever you want) agrees with a position. But "consensus" has a real meaning that does not allow for exceptions to agreement. Everyone agrees -- not figuratively everyone, but actually everyone -- it's impractical, but that's what it is.

Part of the problem, Bob, is that people felt the need to shout him down and call him a bigot instead of simply engaging him on the good-faith arguments he was making. The words he uses are his own responsibility, but attacking him and calling him names doesn't really further a productive discussion.

These "good-faith arguments" have been engaged in previous threads involving Alou, Ray. At a certain point arguing against a brick wall (or more accurately, a brick wall that spouts conjecture and outdated assumptions about gay people) becomes tiresome, and telling it like it is becomes a lot less time consuming.

Can I said well-said to Andy or will some o-meter catch me?

To engage the point more directly: Alou's position that permitting such a "revolutionary change" should be shown to afford "substantial benefits" is backward. Rather, *denying* a right to a class of people solely on the basis of that class should be shown necessary to advance an important societal interest (actually, no--to prevent a substantial societal harm).** The burden is properly on the discriminator to justify his discriminatory treatment; it is not on the individual to justify his being free from discrimination.

**Meaning, an interest/harm supported by evidence more substantive than Victorian assumptions about gay people and the discomfort it might cause evangelicals.

These "good-faith arguments" have been engaged in previous threads involving Alou, Ray. At a certain point arguing against a brick wall (or more accurately, a brick wall that spouts conjecture and outdated assumptions about gay people) becomes tiresome, and telling it like it is becomes a lot less time consuming.

You're only saying this because you believe your argument is fact. By this reasoning, Alou should be free to call some of you (and me) choice words as well, because he feels that his argument is right and he's been arguing against a brick wall that spouts conjecture.

If DMN and I and Crosby can avoid calling some of you guys "progesso-fascists" in every single post about economics, I think some of you could likewise refrain from calling Alou a "bigot" over and over again. If the argument for gay marriage is strong, as I believe it to be, then there's certainly no need to buttress the argument by calling Alou names. I disagree strongly with Alou's view on marriage, but he's been a helluva lot more poised and respectful on what I believe is the wrong side of an argument than a lot of the people on what I believe to be the right side.

And if it consenting adults desire it, does it harm "society" to allow those consenting adults to do it?

I think that's an excellent question, Robert. The issue may become much more high-profile in years ahead, with new immigrants arriving from countries that sanction polygyny. The crux of the question is "consent" and how to determine whether someone is really consenting. When a woman in West Africa becomes a second wife, is it her choice, or one that clan and tradition have made for her? Can a classical-liberal Western individual even make such a choice, by definition, or is the practice bound up in notions of the person and her community which are just antithetical to ours?

By this reasoning, Alou should be free to call some of you (and me) choice words as well, because he feels that his argument is right and he's been arguing against a brick wall that spouts conjecture.

Oh, he can call me whatever he wants. I'm relying on the commonly understood definition of "bigot" here. It's an accurate label. Like I said before--if he's uncomfortable with it, he needs to present an actual substantive defense of his position; otherwise, I can only conclude that his opposition to gay marriage boils down to "Eeew...gays." Which is bigotry. Calling a bigot a bigot is no more "name-calling" than calling a dog a dog.

I can only conclude that his opposition to gay marriage boils down to "Eeew...gays." Which is bigotry. Calling a bigot a bigot is no more "name-calling" than calling a dog a dog.

I can only conclude that the opposition to libertarian economic ideas boils down to "Eeew...freedom." Which is fascism. Calling a fascist a fascist is no more "name-calling" than calling a dog a dog.

See how easy it is?

It's harder to express an idea than hurl an insult. Alou's pretty much the only one on his side of an argument, going up against about a dozen people, yet he, outnumbered and arguing what I feel is a weak argument, is the one showing class and respect.

And if it consenting adults desire it, does it harm "society" to allow those consenting adults to do it?

I think that's an excellent question, Robert. The issue may become much more high-profile in years ahead, with new immigrants arriving from countries that sanction polygyny. The crux of the question is "consent" and how to determine whether someone is really consenting. When a woman in West Africa becomes a second wife, is it her choice, or one that clan and tradition have made for her? Can a classical-liberal Western individual even make such a choice, by definition, or is the practice bound up in notions of the person and her community which are just antithetical to ours?

My wife is writing her dissertation on the ritual euphemistically known as "fgm" (female genital mutilation) and spent the better part of two years doing research in a remote rural village of Burkina Faso. And if anyone thinks that this country is divided on the issue of gay marriage, I invite them to be the fly on the wall when anthropologists get together to talk about how outsiders should react to that issue, which pits two unimpeachable sets of values against one another (cultural autonomy and individual autonomy) in a society that's nowhere near as static as many outsiders seem to believe.

Since my wife is herself torn between these two values, as are many of her Burkinabe friends themselves, she's been the fly on the wall herself at many of these meetings, and from what she tells me, many of those discussions make our gay marriage debate seem like one of Ty Cobb's pink tea parties. If that's any consolation....

It's harder to express an idea than hurl an insult. Alou's pretty much the only one on his side of an argument, going up against about a dozen people, yet he, outnumbered and arguing what I feel is a weak argument, is the one showing class and respect.

Please. This is ridiculous.

Early in the imbroglio on this subject, look at how he dealt with the questions when I asked him to to "please explain" his statement about the "differences of characteristics" between gay and straight marriage.

His responses were to avoid answering the question through the following classics in message board debate lameness:

1) pretending he didn't write what he wrote;

2) insulting the person asking the question;

3) saying he wasn't going to engage with the person asking the question anymore;

4) as part of this, falsely claiming he was putting the person asking the question on his ignore list.

There was no class, and no respect in that behavior.

At the same time, he was also revising and extending a series of bigoted statements. It was then, and only then, that he was called a bigot.

I just read 4901. Really great post Rich.

And then kevin busts out with this gem....
Yeah but converting from catcher to pitcher is always a tough transition, maybe the toughest of any position switch.

Henry Owens made it. But he blew out his arm in the process. I don't want to think how that figures into the analogy...

Andy, OMG teh FGM bomb! Your wife's work sounds tough.

Robert, I'd forgotten about the Quaker definition of consensus.

Dan, I'm not saying this applies to Alou in particular, but a lot of people I talk to (and I've been in upstate NY since this story broke), just don't like the fact that gay marriage makes them think about gay sex. So they don't like to think very deeply about the issue. More than a few people I've talked to are actually OK with it, but some people don't want to stay on the subject for very long purely out of discomfort. I can understand that, but I think in response it's good to try to get those people to push past their discomfort and get to their actual views on the issue, which by and large I've found to be "whatever makes them happy." And then insert straight, middle-aged guy jokes about the correlation between marriage and happiness, and marriage and sex. Retro, all of this is IMO a significant step in the right direction, and as long as they don't let their personal gross-outedness at the thought of hot bunghole action reflect on their policy preference, I don't see any reason to label those people as bigots.

Andy - I don't at all agree that the process has been "quintessentially American" (at least, not if you mean that in a good way). To me the free and democratic way to solve this issue is to settle things at the ballot box, by constitutional amendment if necessary. Instead, it is being "settled" by court rulings and judicial fiat. This is a large part of what annoys me about the issue. Now you may say that this is precisely American because of cases like Roe v Wade but that did not resolve anything just created a lot of people feeling pissed off and disenfranchised. It was a huge tragedy for people, like me, who think abortion should be legal because now the ground is tilted against us in public debate.

Mange, etc - look at post 4870.

Chris - You're really equating not recognising gay marriage to slavery? In that case I assume you'd be prepared to fight a horrible civil war in order to bring it about?

Mange, etc - look at post 4870.

He asked you for evidence. You cite no sources of evidence in 4870.

To me the free and democratic way to solve this issue is to settle things at the ballot box, by constitutional amendment if necessary.

Tyranny of the majority, in other words. The rights of individuals are subservient to the popular will. Outstanding.

Instead, it is being "settled" by court rulings and judicial fiat.

You are aware that's what the judicial branch is there for, right? That you disagree with a court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause does not negate the fact that it is the court's proper role to determine whether a statute violates a constitutional provision. You speak of "court rulings" as if they're inconsistent with "freedom and democracy," rather than an indispensable part of it.

So, again, since the analogy has been drawn before and you've not persuasively responded: if a majority of the citizens of, say, Mississippi, vote in favor of a referendum banning interracial marriage, would you object to a court's striking that provision down?

To engage the point more directly: Alou's position that permitting such a "revolutionary change" should be shown to afford "substantial benefits" is backward. Rather, *denying* a right to a class of people solely on the basis of that class should be shown necessary to advance an important societal interest (actually, no--to prevent a substantial societal harm).** The burden is properly on the discriminator to justify his discriminatory treatment; it is not on the individual to justify his being free from discrimination.

I would take this a step further, and include not only the denial of rights to a class of people, but the granting of special rights to a class of people. If we fail to hold our government to this standard, how can we claim that we are legitimately interested in a society that treats its citizens as equal in moral worth?

AlouGoodbye: And so marriage becomes a less serious thing for everyone.
Crosbybird: Why is this a good or a bad thing?
AlouGoodbye: If you think that's actually a good thing, I'm not going to try and talk you out of it.

I think it's actually a neutral thing in a general sense. There are some people that take marriage too seriously, and remain in unhealthy, destructive relationships because divorce is unthinkable. For those people, a less serious approach is a good thing. There are those who enter into marriage without proper regard for the responsibilities and rights (cultural, legal, and/or societal) that come with the institution. For those people, a less serious approach is a bad thing.

Of course, I don't accept the idea that inclusion of homosexual unions into the definition of marriage diminishes the seriousness of the institution in a general sense.

I am in serious relationship with a woman that I intend to spend the rest of my life with. We plan to get engaged in the fall. Certainly, I believe in the institution of marriage as a good thing. Within this perspective, the idea that there are loving people, consenting adults, who are excluded from this noble institution diminishes it in my eyes. I take marriage less seriously, and hold it as less precious, because as currently defined, it emphasizes values of exclusion over the value of forming a bond between loved ones.

Andy - I don't at all agree that the process has been "quintessentially American" (at least, not if you mean that in a good way). To me the free and democratic way to solve this issue is to settle things at the ballot box, by constitutional amendment if necessary. Instead, it is being "settled" by court rulings and judicial fiat. This is a large part of what annoys me about the issue.

That's because you're merely repeating right-wing falsehoods about this decision while remaining blithely ignorant of the how the issue has been dealt with previously in California. Dahlia Lithwick eviscerated this particular bit of ignorance the other day on Slate:

When it comes to gay marriage, California is a hotbed of activism. Their activist Legislature has twice passed bills that would legalize gay marriage, and their activist governor has twice vetoed those bills. That same activist Legislature also enacted a ban on same-sex marriage in 1977, and its activist citizenry passed a statewide ballot initiative in 2000 doing the same thing. While polls show that Californians are increasingly supportive of gay marriage, other activist citizens have been collecting what now amounts to 1.1 million signatures to amend their constitution in November to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But then today the state's activist Supreme Court got in on the activist action, finding in a 4-3 decision that the California ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." That makes everybody an activist in California, just by virtue of the fact that they are acting. (Let it be noted that it's particularly activist of the state Legislature and its citizens to be banning and legalizing gay marriage all at the same time.)

In case you are confused about whose superactivist-hero powers trump here, let me add that California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger—who had vetoed both attempts by the state Legislature to enact bills legalizing same-sex marriage on the grounds that they would override the more than 60 percent of the state's voters who'd approved 2000 referendum—announced today that he would abide by the state Supreme Court's decision. "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," he said in a statement today. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

So—and in the event that you are scoring this along with me from the bleachers—that means the Governator, who was once prepared to thwart the will of the Legislature in order to uphold the will of the people, is not prepared to usurp the prerogative of the courts to thwart the will of the people or the Legislature. Nor will he back any future attempts of the people to usurp the powers of the courts. Which by some lights makes him a seriously activist governor and by others makes him the biggest wuss in history.

Roe v Wade [...] did not resolve anything just created a lot of people feeling pissed off and disenfranchised. It was a huge tragedy for people, like me, who think abortion should be legal because now the ground is tilted against us in public debate

For all that, the Republican Party at the height of its power in the mid-1990s never seriously pressed a federal right-to-life amendment (perhaps their thinking was that nothing would have eroded that power more quickly). Roe v. Wade probably is an egregious example of legislating from the bench, but it is legislation that the majority agrees with (though a substantial minority would see it, as in the issues that retro-shiite mentions, as a tyranny of that majority against the rights of the unborn).

Tyranny of the majority, in other words. The rights of individuals are subservient to the popular will. Outstanding... You are aware that's what the judicial branch is there for, right? That you disagree with a court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause does not negate the fact that it is the court's proper role to determine whether a statute violates a constitutional provision.

I plan to keep this is mind, because if the libs truly believe in this principle, then I don't want to hear any bellyaching from any of you if and when the USSC overturns the D.C. gun ban as being unconstitutional.

Chris - You're really equating not recognising gay marriage to slavery? In that case I assume you'd be prepared to fight a horrible civil war in order to bring it about?

No, he's not. I'm not meaning to be crass, but please read the section you are referring to again.

To me the free and democratic way to solve this issue is to settle things at the ballot box, by constitutional amendment if necessary.

Unconditionally? What if we vote to execute everyone whose name begins with X?

if the libs truly believe in this principle, then I don't want to hear any bellyaching from any of you if and when the USSC overturns the D.C. gun ban as being unconsitutional

:-D Fortunately "bellyaching" is a right enumerated in the First Amendment, for majorities and minorities alike ...

Chris - You're really equating not recognising gay marriage to slavery? In that case I assume you'd be prepared to fight a horrible civil war in order to bring it about?

He is pointing out that your argument (the one that he quoted) for not recognizing gay marriage would also have worked (at least in 1860) as an argument in favor slavery.

I plan to keep this is mind, because if the libs truly believe in this principle, then I don't want to hear any bellyaching from any of you if and when the USSC overturns the D.C. gun ban as being unconstitutional.

As long as you don't completely #### up and play "I told you so" if we don't believe that the ruling is correct.

Obviously, the USSC can do exactly what you say within its role.

Rooting for EEII, Kevin

EEII? I'm missing this one.

Andy - I don't at all agree that the process has been "quintessentially American" (at least, not if you mean that in a good way). To me the free and democratic way to solve this issue is to settle things at the ballot box, by constitutional amendment if necessary. Instead, it is being "settled" by court rulings and judicial fiat. This is a large part of what annoys me about the issue. Now you may say that this is precisely American because of cases like Roe v Wade but that did not resolve anything just created a lot of people feeling pissed off and disenfranchised. It was a huge tragedy for people, like me, who think abortion should be legal because now the ground is tilted against us in public debate.

There are several things to say to this.

First, the ballot box is the way that this is going to be decided. We just haven't reached that stage yet. Court orders are overturned by legislatures (and by referendum) all the time, when a consensus is arrived at that those court decisions were truly beyond the pale. All that the California decision does is to put the ball back in the other court.

The country is at present divided on the question of gay marriage, and this is reflected in the conflicting state laws, constitutions and court decisions. If you want to ban gay marriage via constitutional amendment and settle this once and for all, then by all means go for it. But if you want to succeed, you're going to have to take your campaign beyond the ranks of the already converted. I realize that this can sometimes be a problem. Tell me about it.

And the same with abortion. If opponents want to ban it or restrict it, they've got a zillion ways of doing so, and they've already succeeded in many of them. Again, this is an issue where the split in the country is reflected in the differing laws and court decisions. This may not be to the complete satisfaction of either NARAL or the Right to Lifers, but that's because neither of these groups speak for anything more than sizeable minorities. But never once has any public opinion poll said that Roe should be repealed.

And so we wind up with the eternal complaint about "government by judiciary," which has been a fluctating staple of Left and Right criticism going back over 200 years, and notably since the mid-1930's. Well, guess what? That's part of what elections are for. And it's why anytime I hear some "Democrat" talking about sitting out the election (or voting for McCain) I have to wonder why they're even allowed out of the house, and why when I hear some "conservative" touting some Libertarian alternative to McCain, I want to hire a limo to drive him to the poll.

And BTW speaking as a practical matter, while I agree that in an ideal world it would have been swell if abortion rights had been granted by Congress or by the 50 state legislatures rather than by Roe v Wade, I'd much rather see the Right to Lifers have to chip away at the edges of abortion rights, as they're doing today, than to have to have women be forced go around begging 50 different state legislatures for the "privilege." I'll let the lawyers argue about the constitutional niceties, but I'm glad that the Burger Court made the Right to Lifers have to do the groveling. Let them freeze their butts off every January 22nd picketing the Supreme Court.

Rooting for EEII, Kevin

EEII? I'm missing this one.

Roman numerals, Kev. IOW EE2. For now a pale imitation of the original, but then at the rate you're going, by 2027 you can drop the second I.

First, the ballot box is the way that this is going to be decided.

Let it be reiterated for the record, BTW, that the members of this court have limited terms and must face the voters periodically to continue serving, after they've been appointed by a governor.

First, I'd like to thank Bob Machemer for fighting a losing battle to preserve the real meaning of consensus as requiring unanimity rather than majority agreement.

Second, you'll note that this concept basically describes libertarianism, too.

Third, as a libertarian my position on legalized gay marriage is clear: there shouldn't be any, because the government shouldn't be in the business of recognizing vel non social arrangements. If Bob and Jane want to call themselves married, it's up to everyone else individually to decide how to treat them; if Bob and Jim want to do so, ditto. Virtually all legal issues related to marriage in our current society can be contracted for; the big exception is taxes, and the tax code shouldn't be used to encourage or discourage private behavior. (To the extent that a "marriage penalty" is an inherent feature of a progressive tax code -- which it is -- well, that just furthers the argument against the progressive tax code.)

But in terms of the pure policy argument, I have to say that people here are making a pretty poor case in favor of it. So far, I've seen two main arguments: "why not," and "you're a bigot." Neither one would exactly make Socrates blush with envy at one's rhetorical prowess. To a libertarian, "Why not?" is a compelling argument as to whether private individuals should be allowed to do something, but that isn't what the gay marriage debate is; as I've already mentioned, gays can get married now. The gay marriage debate is whether government should give it special status in our society. By "special," I mean beyond millions of other social/economic relationships between individuals; I don't mean "beyond straight marriage.")

I've seen two main arguments: "why not," and "you're a bigot." Neither one would exactly make Socrates blush with envy at one's rhetorical prowess

Agreed on "you're a bigot"; but "why not?" hasn't been countered very well. When "why not?" doesn't meet any good counter-arguments, it often prevails, as with women's suffrage or Jackie Robinson to the Dodgers.

I've seen two main arguments: "why not," and "you're a bigot." Neither one would exactly make Socrates blush with envy at one's rhetorical prowess

Agreed on "you're a bigot"; but "why not?" hasn't been countered very well. When "why not?" doesn't meet any good counter-arguments, it often prevails, as with women's suffrage or Jackie Robinson to the Dodgers.

But here, unless I'm mistaken (wouldn't be the first time), David's position is essentially non-discriminatory; he doesn't want the state recognizing (or "giving special status" to) any kind of marriage, either gay or straight. And in this, rather than coming down with Alou and singling out gay marriage for non-recognition, he's back to his more familiar position of being more or less alone against the world. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

OTOH Alou has made a case for "why not," even if it's one whose grip on the public has been fast fading over the past couple of decades, as the public realizes that "Adam and Steve" or "Jane and June" don't mean the end of the world. And IMO it's good to have people like Alou (and David) around, for the simple reason that they force us to clarify our own thinking. There's nothing worse than being trapped in a room with people who all think alike, unless of course it's in the Dean Dome.

Roman numerals, Kev. IOW EE2.

I'm still not getting it, Andy. Who is EE 1?North Carolina? Celtics? You got me.

But in terms of the pure policy argument, I have to say that people here are making a pretty poor case in favor of it. So far, I've seen two main arguments: "why not," and "you're a bigot." Neither one would exactly make Socrates blush with envy at one's rhetorical prowess. To a libertarian, "Why not?" is a compelling argument as to whether private individuals should be allowed to do something, but that isn't what the gay marriage debate is; as I've already mentioned, gays can get married now. The gay marriage debate is whether government should give it special status in our society. By "special," I mean beyond millions of other social/economic relationships between individuals; I don't mean "beyond straight marriage.")

I would agree that your position is perfectly logically consist with your other principles as long as you are against any sort of state sponsored marriage, not just against state sponsored same-sex marriage.

The deeper policy justifications have been touched on, they simply have taken a back seat since the main critic of same-sex marriage on the site is completely unsupported in terms of "Why not?" so that's been the best argument to make. Obviously that's not relevant to your questioning.

The policy justifications are there, but likely not useful to you. All of them assume that we have an interest in the government supporting unique lifelong partnerships between people and stable family structures--ideas that make social, emotional and economic sense, but are going to take a back seat to government power concerns in the libertarian mind.

That's fine. I'm not going to say, "Government should do that dumbass!" But can I just make one request: I know you hold your beliefs strongly and they make perfect sense, so you should circulate them widely.

However, when we are discussing something like same sex marriage, it'd be nice if we didn't have to rehash the same, "Any government intervention is bad" argument at the same time as setting other concerns, and act surprised that those who disagree hold a different position on how the government should intervene.

I mean, at some point we have to say, "Sure all taxation is bad in your mind, but we do have taxation and there are different ways of apply them that are not all equal and therefore shouldn't be equally wrong in your mind."

To illustrate, I am firmly against any kind non-student, non-teacher designed standard assessment as a way to set up punitive measures. I think it's an abomination and I make this clear in nearly every conversation I have on the topic.

However, I am still capable of acknowledging that we do indeed have standardized testing and that in this world where we do, they are some ways to enact them that are more dreadful than others and there are some ways of preparing for them that are superior than others without saying, "What's the point? This are a horrible idea anyway!"

It was a huge tragedy for people, like me, who think abortion should be legal because now the ground is tilted against us in public debate

Bracketing the question of the justice of abortion, I think this is completely insane.

If you believe in the right to bodily autonomy that underlies abortion rights, then you absolutely should not wish that we had a regulatory scheme in place in which women who lived in a great number of states would not have this right. There is no reasonable projection of American history in which a diametrically opposed decision in Roe or Casey does not lead to a massive restriction in abortion rights for a variety of women who live in particular states and who are in particular economic classes.

If your desire for aesthetics in judicial rulings is greater than your desire for abortion rights, I'd suggest your support of abortion rights is not particularly strong.

A question for any of the libertarians out there... is there a systematic stance on intellectual property rights? How would things like copyright, trademark and patent protection work in a libertarian society?

There's no consensus (or even widespread agreement) on that point (*), no, although I think the weight of the debate favors IP. Certainly an awful lot of current IP practice looks like the sort of rent seeking that libertarians find so distasteful, but that doesn't mean that IP is inherently conceptually flawed. Rand was a big IP supporter, as is Richard Epstein today. Rothbard and Mises supported it, at least to an extent, using a Lockean approach. Nozick raised the question didn't exactly answer it in Anarchy, State, and Utopia; he does suggest that patents should be secured only for a limited time, which approximated how long it would have taken someone else to invent it if the patent-holder hadn't. Although Rothbard favored IP, many of the Rockwellians oppose it. I don't remember what Hayek said about copyright; I need to research that.


(*) Well, not on copyright/patent. Trademark is a different story. Although all are lumped under "IP" in the U.S., they're different. Trademark is about consumer protection; it's essentially (and ideally; obviously sometimes it's abused) a way of preventing fraud, to prevent you from passing off your goods or services as someone else's, or to prevent you from passing their goods or services off as yours. I can't imagine any libertarian who objects to trademark, at least conceptually.

I don't remember what Hayek said about copyright

She said she had sole rights to all her naked pictures.

on the topic of the CA decision, i thought it was a masterfully reasoned opinion, and extremely difficult to assail from a legal standpoint considering the language of past CA decisions like Perez. stuff like that makes me proud of my profession.

and for the most part argued with respect for the other POV.

What am I doing wrong, Andy?

Rooting for EEII, Kevin, though that's forgiven because of Carolina and the Celtics.

Roman numerals, Kev. IOW EE2.

I'm still not getting it, Andy. Who is EE 1?North Carolina? Celtics? You got me.

EE = Evil Empire.

EEII (AKA EE2) = that other team you root for. But since you also pull for the Heels and the Celtics, you're forgiven for your original sin.

Now go back and keep that home court advantage going. Those off-green jerseys make me nervous---can't picture Bird or Parrish in one of those.

Now go back and keep that home court advantage going. Those off-green jerseys make me nervous---can't picture Bird or Parrish in one of those.

Hate the frikkin' uniforms. They had the best uniforms in the NBA and managed to #### them up by trying to be trendy.

Mange, etc - look at post 4870.


He asked you for evidence. You cite no sources of evidence in 4870.

Correct. You have stated several times that gay marriage will harm marriage. I am married, and I simply don't understand WHY you believe that. I believe that you believe it, and really have no idea why you think that. The right to marry exists in Mass, IIRC, and I haven't heard of any negative implications other than declaratives, with no evidence to refute or defend it. And with no evidence that there is harm, I can't see the logic in preventing it.

So again I ask, what is the evidence of harm?

And in case I am unclear - you are very detailed in your description of why you think that if your list of bad things happen, then that harms "society." However, I have no belief that the list of bad things will happen in the "gay community" any moreso than in the "straight community."

You want to get rid of no-fault divorce? I disagree, but can understand and think there is some common ground. But should that be the real issue, then you could eliminate it for gay marriages, too. So I don't really think that's the issue. There would be more stable gay relationships if they were allowed to marry, not fewer.

There's no consensus (or even widespread agreement) on that point (*), no, although I think the weight of the debate favors IP. Certainly an awful lot of current IP practice looks like the sort of rent seeking that libertarians find so distasteful, but that doesn't mean that IP is inherently conceptually flawed. Rand was a big IP supporter, as is Richard Epstein today. Rothbard and Mises supported it, at least to an extent, using a Lockean approach. Nozick raised the question didn't exactly answer it in Anarchy, State, and Utopia; he does suggest that patents should be secured only for a limited time, which approximated how long it would have taken someone else to invent it if the patent-holder hadn't. Although Rothbard favored IP, many of the Rockwellians oppose it. I don't remember what Hayek said about copyright; I need to research that.


(*) Well, not on copyright/patent. Trademark is a different story. Although all are lumped under "IP" in the U.S., they're different. Trademark is about consumer protection; it's essentially (and ideally; obviously sometimes it's abused) a way of preventing fraud, to prevent you from passing off your goods or services as someone else's, or to prevent you from passing their goods or services off as yours. I can't imagine any libertarian who objects to trademark, at least conceptually.

Thanks David.

That's definitely what I would have expected on trademark.

I wasn't sure what the views would be on the apparent conflict between the property right protection (and the corresponding incentive to innovate) that are at the heart of IP and the current behavior that is too often used to inhabit competition (and stifle innovation in the process). Not to put words in your mouth (or the mouths of everyone you cited), but would it be fair to say that, in general, libertarians are much more in favor of the principle of IP than the practice?

EDIT: Which is probably a view that crosses many ideological boundaries.

Correct. You have stated several times that gay marriage will harm marriage. I am married, and I simply don't understand WHY you believe that.

I think the logic is not that implementing gay marriage will cause anyone to get divorced, but that legalizing gay marriage implicitly defines marriage a certain way, and that definition would ultimately lead to a decline in support for marriage. I find the logic sound (which may be because I wrote it), but I don't find it convincing that it's factually valid in this particular case, in that I think that whatever change to the definition of marriage we're talking about has already happened -- which is, in fact, why gay marriage has come to be an issue (IOW, gay marriage is a symptom, not cause, of this redefinition)-- and whatever resulting damage this would do to marriage has already been done, and much worse than gay marriage could. But I don't find the liberal conceit that changes to incentives don't matter -- the "I'm married, and X policy change wouldn't affect my marriage or change my behavior, so it's crazy to think that gay marriage would have any effects" -- to be very convincing either.

I think the logic is not that implementing gay marriage will cause anyone to get divorced, but that legalizing gay marriage implicitly defines marriage a certain way, and that definition would ultimately lead to a decline in support for marriage. I find the logic sound (which may be because I wrote it), but I don't find it convincing that it's factually valid in this particular case, in that I think that whatever change to the definition of marriage we're talking about has already happened -- which is, in fact, why gay marriage has come to be an issue -- and whatever resulting damage this would do to marriage has already been done, and much worse than gay marriage could. But I don't find the liberal conceit that changes to incentives don't matter -- the "I'm married, and X policy change wouldn't affect my marriage or change my behavior, so it's crazy to think that gay marriage would have any effects" -- to be very convincing either.

Fair enough; I agree that I am simply an anecdote. I am more convinced by the argument that it will increase the number of stable relationships, by creating all the disincentive to separate that marriage creates.

And more to the point, I don't see any evidence from the countries or states that allow gay marriage that are evidence of the negative repurcussions that are argued. I would gladly read it if cited; perhaps it's persuasive.

Virtually all legal issues related to marriage in our current society can be contracted for; the big exception is taxes, and the tax code shouldn't be used to encourage or discourage private behavior.

Are you married, or do you have a civil union? Does it matter?
We're also working from a present state, not the goofball state in your mind. *given that there are state sanctioned marriages* , why not gay ones? What's the objective argument against htat (and I think your logic is weak - there already is a definition of marriage)

If your desire for aesthetics in judicial rulings is greater than your desire for abortion rights, I'd suggest your support of abortion rights is not particularly strong.

If your desire to get your way on a particular point is stronger than your desire to live in a democracy, I'd suggest your support of democracy is not particularly strong.

Besides, "If you believe in the right to bodily autonomy that underlies abortion rights"... that sounds awfully like a right to self-ownership, Matt. Funny how these rights appear and disappear as convenient. I don't even know what "abortion rights" are, in a moral sense. I mean, I'm pretty sure a woman has rights over her own body but I'm pretty sure the foetus/unborn child/whatever has got at least some rights. I don't see how it's in any way clear where the one's rights begin and the other's end. This is why lots of people disagree on the subject, and why there are "pro-life" and "pro-choice" people right across the political spectrum.

But the difference, of course, is that while the world over people may debate whether abortion is right or wrong, America is essentially the only first-world country where the issue is a political one, as opposed to simply one of a moral nature. And given that I do not believe that America is either uniquely blessed or cursed by God or destiny, it seems pretty obvious that political debate would have settled down here too, and we'd have come to the position that every other civilised country has come to. Yet of course that will never be the case as long as democracy is pre-empted by unaccountable judges usurping legislative powers.

I mean, I'm pretty sure a woman has rights over her own body but I'm pretty sure the foetus/unborn child/whatever has got at least some rights.

The father should have legal rights as well.

I note that the same people who tend to worry about the "standing" of the U.S. in the world, and world opinion, and so-called "international law," seem to forget that the vast majority of countries don't allow abortion basically on-demand at any time prior to viability, like the U.S. does. Should we amend our laws to conform more to those of the rest of the world?

but I'm pretty sure the foetus/unborn child/whatever has got at least some rights. I don't see how it's in any way clear where the one's rights begin and the other's end.

Starting when? Does sperm have rights? Is it right at fertilization?

Never a doubt, Kev.

WHEW!!!!!!!

Best game I've seen since Bird deked Isiah 21 years ago.

Pierce was magnificent. He didn't get flustered when the refs swallowed their whistles.

And I love the idea of leaving PJ Brown down low to clean up on the offensive glass. With Pierce and Garnett pulling the Cleveland big men away from the basket, they were vulnerable there.