Gay Marriage in AZ

Good:  A judge has ruled that Arizona's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional.  I suppose I am a little torn over judicial overreach here, but enough freedom-robbing stuff happens through judicial overreach that I will accept it here in my favor.

Republicans should rejoice this, at least in private.  From my interactions with young people, there is nothing killing the R's more than the gay marriage issue.  Young people don't understand squat about economics, but they are pretty sure that people fighting gay marriage are misguided (they would probably use harsher language).  Given that R's hold a position they are sure is evil (anti-gay-marriage) they assume that Progressive attacks that R's are evil on economics must be right too, without actually understanding the issue.  In short, young people reject the free market because its proponents hold what they believe to be demonstratively bad opinions on social issues.

I learned a real lesson about politics from my brief involvement in this issue -- which is, don't ever become involved again.  I am still frankly reeling from the refusal of gay rights activists to work with our group because I and others involved did not hold other Left-wing opinions.  Until this time I had a fantasy that libertarians could make common cause with the Left on social issues and the Right on fiscal and commerce issues, but I saw how this was a pipe dream.

  • Jim Clay

    I am not rejoicing, because some things are more important than politics. I am starting to think that the country deserves everything that's coming down the pike.

  • jdgalt

    Even Rush Limbaugh has admitted that gay marriage is a lost cause for the Right, and most of them have abandoned the effort to stop it. I can't wait until they figure out that the same is true for abortion.

    The important thing now is for us, in large numbers, to send this message to stuck-in-the-mud conservatives like Karl Rove and Ann Coulter:

    The Republicans must embrace liberty or vanish. They'll have to come to us libertarians; we'll never go back to them. An "establishment" (= big-government) Republican candidate is an even worse choice than a Democrat, since he will spend just as much, and take just as much of our freedom away -- and the Right will get the blame. Why should we help them make that happen?

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Young people don't understand squat about economics, but they are pretty sure that people fighting gay marriage are misguided (they would probably use harsher language).

    Well, good to see the young people got their wishes with this critical issue.

    Gee, got ebola? No worries, well send a lawyer.

    Got cancer? No worries, we’ll cure it through interpretive dance.

  • mesocyclone

    This whole thing is a triumph of issue framing, propaganda and faddism over reason. Gay "marriage" is simply not marriage by any historical or reasonable definition. Rather, than a civil recognition of the progenitive union of the two halves of our species, it is the wholesale, unchecked granting of all governmental benefits created for the former, to a weak shadow of true marriage.

    The propaganda came through framing.

    Calling it gay "marriage" worked very well - it was uncritically accepted, especially by our poorly educated young who have no idea of the millenia old definition and meaning of marriage.

    Calling a "ban" the government refusal to provide benefits to this union identical to those for true marriage allowed advocates to paint opponents as those seeking to ban private behavior, even though they did no such thing. I'd bet a lot of proponents believe that the "ban" prevented gays from having marriage ceremonies or living together. I'd bet a lot more think that there are lots of gays in society, rather than fewer than 2%/

    The Stalinist demonization of opponents helped, too. To oppose gay "marriage" was to be defined as a hater - with the implication that only hatred could motivate such opposition. To oppose gay "marriage" was to be defined as somebody out of touch with progress, a typical line of the left. To oppose gay "marriage" was to be defined as ignorant or uncaring. In other words, it was rapidly made socially unacceptable to hold opinions not currently in favor. The defenestration of Brandon Ivey is illustrative of this mindset.

    It says a lot about our society that such a sham has gained acceptance more rapidly than almost any other idea in modern history. It is frightening that the tactics used here have been uncritically accepted.

    Note that my concerns here are far more about the destructive effects of the propaganda and illogic, and anti-democratic process, than most impacts of the actual governmental recognition of these unions as "marriage." This triumph of illogic and emotion will most certainly be emulated to push other causes down the throats of Americans. The few direct negative impacts will be the direct suppression of much religious exercise by the thought police - a suppression which has already shut down large worthy charities which refused to knuckle under to government insistence on placing adoptees with gay parents. The other possible negative impact will be on the children growing up in this weak emulation of a proper family.

    Far better that this judicial fiat suddenly redefining many, many laws had been a democratic process to decide which of these
    benefits should go to other forms of relationship, and importantly, to
    decide which ones have no purpose in government to begin with.

    One would hope that Libertarians at least would oppose the sort of campaign that is profoundly undemocratic, that wins by lies and demonization, and ultimately by the fiat of the minions of the central government - federal judges.

    BTW... now that the gays have won, stand by for rapid advances for the "trans-gendered" and for polygamy and polyamory.

  • mesocyclone

    Libertarians don't force adoption charities to place children with whoever the *government* wants. Libertarians are not usually fans of central government officials overriding hundreds of democratically enacted laws. Libertarians are not supposed to be people who want to increase the grants of privilege and money from the government to more people.

    This is not about liberty. Gays have had the liberty to marry and live together for 20 years. This is about government forcing on half the population an idea that the other half wants them to accept.

    Libertarian? Hah!

  • B Cole

    The GOP is willfully committing suicide. The anti-gay marriage stance, the anti-abortion stance, the hyper nationalism and militarism - a libertarian is supposed to vote for this?

  • KevinM

    "Good: A judge has ruled".

    I question the utility of federal judicial social meddling. Has a bad history in practice.

    Best to push for a local democratic consensus, with all the outreach, logrolling, and compromise that entails.

  • Walter Olson

    Careful before generalizing your Arizona experience to the whole country. In a number of other states, including mine, the liberal groups were happy to work respectfully with those of us among libertarians, Republicans, and conservatives who agreed with them on the gay-marriage ballot measure. Indeed, one of the big reasons the gay-marriage side started winning referenda after years of losing was that it began paying attention to themes and arguments that appealed to those of us who are not on the left.

  • Dana Kerns

    What does the advancement of the homosexual agenda and the killing of children have in common? Neither rests upon any evidence from science, from history, from experience for their fundamental premises; both rely upon government force suppressing opposition.

    No data at all exists to support homosexual behavior as innate rather than chosen. None. Zero. On the contrary, extensive evidence almost mathematically conclusively demonstrates the opposite (identical twin studies; nothing at all showing DNA forces homosexual behavior; people choosing homosexuality at some time in their lives, then choosing heterosexuality, then choosing homosexuality, then choosing heterosexuality rinse and repeat; evolution theory whereby if there existed a homosexual gene it would disappear in at most a few generations; massive piles of historical experience; the incredible personal and social costs over a lifetime of denying biological reality; the eventual destruction of societies via homosexual practice as anything other than a minority fringe behavior). No wonder that homosexual behavior gets practiced as a continuous lifestyle by no more than perhaps as much as a couple percent of the population. So much for a libertarian position.

    Abortion as a legally protected practice requires that one choose either: 1) a society which allows the murder of other people as perfectly OK, or 2) a society which believes and acts as if some people aren't. By any method of examining the nature of a child from conception to 3.7 microseconds before delivery, that child is, well, human. Not a shred of evidence exists that supports any other conclusion. None. Squirms and squeals to the contrary notwithstanding. Rather than face the reality, the abort crowd insists that a child is not human because utterly arbitrary legal fiat declares that child not human. What would prevent legal fiat from changing the definition of personhood from the instant of birth to age 17 yrs 364 days, the time needed to determine if the potential voter is, well, gonna be burden to society (as defined by the current administration)? So much for a libertarian position.

  • Rick C

    " I suppose I am a little torn over judicial overreach here, but enough freedom-robbing stuff happens through judicial overreach that I will accept it here in my favor."

    LOL! Warren doesn't like judicial overreach except when the outcome is something he likes.

  • Rick C

    "BTW... now that the gays have won, stand by for rapid advances for the "trans-gendered" and for polygamy and polyamory."

    I have been assured that there's no comparison to be made and the idea that there's a slippery slope is utter nonsense.

  • Daniel Barger

    The issue of gay marriage is one of "Where is the line drawn".....historically for MILLENIA.....marriage was One Man and One Woman....PERIOD. Once activists start pushing to redraw that line and the quisling judiciary do so not because it is right but because the winds of political pressure scare them that line is GONE....forever.
    Now the next group of advocates can push....and we have seen that with laws against polygamy being overturned. Eventually it will be 3 men can get married or 3 women.....or 4 guys and a donkey....or whatever bizarre permutation can garner enough advocates to apply enough media, social and political pressure to have the standards changed....YET AGAIN. It's not about homophobia or hatred. It's about recognizing that standards exist for a reason, that these standards came about for good reasons and that changing them is going to create consequences that are harmful. And it isn't just the definition of marriage that has suffered from such change.
    The no fault divorce change 50 odd years ago has created the nanny state where the government steals money to give to single/divorced mothers incentivizing bastard children and the ejection of fathers from the lives of children.....because people insisted on changing standards. Another issue is abortion. It used to be illegal...then it became legal....then it became FREE too many people because of political activism....just like contraception is now "free"....meaning useful taxpayer funds it for useless people. Abortion standards and restrictions are constantly being challenged by people claiming "I HAVE RIGHTS".....if the standards are not held eventually abortion
    the week AFTER the child is born could become legal....I mean if it's legal to abort a fetus 2 days before the due date why isn't it legal to eliminate it 2 days after it's born.
    Lines that are not defended cease to exist and the conduct they guarded against becomes normalized. This phenomenon can cut both ways but one must remember that while change is inevitable not all change is good.

  • marque2

    Yes I can't wait until they figure it out for abortion, since now that you can marry anything, the only thing better to top that is baby killing.

    I don't think killing babies has as much traction as leftists think. The reason they think everyone is for it, is because the leftist side is so shrill. Actually, per polling, folks who are against wanton abortion has been steadily increasing. Esp, when we discoved liberals don't care if the women get killed I'm unsafe abortion mills, like Kermit.'s house of horrors, just as long as the deed is done.

  • marque2

    There does seem to be an interesting expand government angle. More benefits for everybody!

  • skhpcola

    historically for MILLENIA.....marriage was One Man and One Woman

    To be precise, for millenia marriage was one man and up to several women, but the concept was similar, biologically, culturally, and practically. I'm not aware of any society that granted its imprimatur to a union of same-sex individuals.

    This issue should be decided at the state level, in honor of the Tenth Amendment. But, as usual, liberaltarians applaud federal judicial activism...when it slouches their way. The hypocrisy is appalling, but de rigeur these days. Clinton and Preezy Obola's powers to appoint judges are paying off in spades (I know...RAYCISS!!1!) for the left and their ideological fellow travelers.

  • http://klout.com/#/ilovegrover Thane_Eichenauer

    Claiming that "that there's a slippery slope is utter nonsense" is utter nonsense. An idea is persuasive or it isn't. I rather think that the slippery slope from gay marriage to legalized polygamy sounds plausible to me.

  • Sam L.

    You were not "pure" enough for them!

  • Dana Kerns

    To be even more precise, one man and one woman. That in some cultures at some times instances of polygamy happened serves as proof because in those cultures either: 1) the instances were a) frowned upon by the culture at large, or 2) happened because someone in power got away with defying either or both of social more's and even law (the examples people appeal to in the Bible, plus observe that the biblical record shows that those instances led to disaster in that generation or in generations later). or 2) the culture itself is recognized as, well, pretty messed up in general (isolated tribal practices, Muslim practices that track back to some guy parlaying military conquest into his personal means of abusing lots of folks including not merely multiple wives but even preteen girls.

    Kudos, skhpcola, for correctly observing the inherent denial of biological and cultural reality demanded by the homosexual agenda. But transferring resisting this to the state level equals no more than piecemeal surrender of what you have observed. That in turn means admitting, not only for practical purposes, but for all purposes, the observation is no more than a predilection subservient to redefinition by law.

    It is this last which lies at the heart of, forms the central thesis of Coyote's position. Of course hypocrisy will result. And disasters. But these are results, not the cause, not the pivotal point.

  • skhpcola

    At the root of this discussion is the reality that--as mesocyclone pointed out in the first comment--gays constitute 1.6% of American society, according to the US government in a recent and large population study. According to the strident and petulant gay lobby, 5 million gays should be free to piss off tens of millions of other Americans by staking a Constitutionally-spurious claim to the right of marriage. But this really isn't about rights at all. It is a script right out of the teachings of the Frankfurt School...an attempt to demand ideological purity among the proles. My ( or your or the host's or the government's) acceptance of a gay relationship has absolutely no bearing on the happiness or success of said gay relationship, although by the keening and gnashing of teeth by the gays and fellow travelers like Coyote, it's the last hurdle to achieving gay nirvana.

    It is all about power and control, and Warren is just a well-intended liberaltarian playing the Useful Idiot. A basic tenet of Libertarianism is that people should be free to do whatever they wish as long as that behavior doesn't affect other people's liberty or property. By the imposition of diktat--de facto and de jure--that Americans must service gays at bakeries, wedding chapels, wherever, those that demand gay marriage are destroying the rights of Americans to freely associate. This entire topic is anathema to conservative ideals classical liberal ideals. It appeals greatly to leftist filth and liberaltarians.

  • Daniel Barger

    Yes.....historically for millennia marriage has been ONE man and ONE woman. There are the exceptions....usually kings, potentates, sultans and the like, men of enormous wealth and power who kept harems and concubines, who routinely treated hand maidens and servants as property....but the ACTUAL formalized marriage of more than one woman to a single man was a rare exception outside of a few cultures.

  • JW

    Don't be the frog, Warren. Scorpions never change.

  • Zachriel

    Daniel Barger: historically for MILLENIA.....marriage was One Man and One Woman....PERIOD.

    Um, no.

    Deuteronomy 21:15-16

    If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

    Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn

  • Rick C

    Are you in favor of polygamy? Plenty of people, btw, are saying there is no slippery slope, and that of course gay marriage won't lead to polygamy, but you seem to have just demonstrated there is, in fact, one.

  • Pat Moffitt

    What you encountered is in keeping with Disturbance Theory.

  • Zachriel

    Daniel Barger: Yes.....historically for millennia marriage has been ONE man and ONE woman. There are the exceptions....usually kings, potentates, sultans and the like, men of enormous wealth and power who kept harems and concubines

    Um, no. While a man with two wives was considered richer than a man with one wife, you didn't have to be a king or potentate to afford two wives. Polygyny is still common in many parts of the world.

  • Curtis

    The law used to be what the civil polity said it was in America. No more. It's just a matter of time now until a judge strikes down laws against polygamy or child wives. There is no controlling legal reason to ban them if the rules set by civil society have no meaning in the eyes of a single judge of the law.
    I think the passing of democracy is worth mourning.

  • Travis

    Well I can't say how things will go for you down in the US, but here in Canada we have had same sex marriage for almost 10 years and 3 years ago our supreme court upheld the law against polygamy. So no slippery slope here and society has yet to collapse.

  • marque2

    It is really funny, how 20 years ago, all the proponents of Gay rights told us that 10% of the population is gay, and we should support this and that, because tons of people are gay. Surveys show kids in college are so exposed to gay lifestyle stuff that they think some 30% of people are gay.

    Now the latest is that Gay marriage is OK because only 1.6% of people are gay. Well now that it suits the argument, we have very few gay people. So how many people are gay? I guess that all depends on how leftists want to present their latest attach on traditional families.

  • marque2

    King Solomon, of biblical fame, had 700 wives

  • HenryBowman419

    Gays have had the liberty to marry and live together for 20 years.

    Can you explain why you think gays have had the liberty to marry for 20 years? I am unaware of such, at least in the U.S.

  • mesocyclone

    Because government need only get out of the way for people to marry, and the last laws against sodomy were overturned by the Supreme Court (although I had the date wrong - it was 2003 - 11 years ago).

    What gay "marriage" advocates want and are getting is state benefits for their union, which is a different, non-Libertarian thing.

  • mahtso

    I don't expect society to collapse here, but your comment suggests two points: (1) there is no rational basis to exclude polygamous, polyandrous, or incestuous marriages if same sex marriage is allowable on an equal rights/nondiscrimination basis; and (2) although many who pushed for same sex marriage rights asserted that it was based on equal rights/nondiscrimination, that was most likely just a lie.

  • mahtso

    Gays could marry, but not to the person of their choosing -- that is why the proper framing of the issue is "same sex marriage"

  • Dana Kerns

    Yes, marque2. A bunch of posters have noted the existence of polygamy, including that recorded in the Bible. The Bible tells (short version) that Solomon, in defiance of the law and in unbelief regarding God's promises to take care of Israel, obtained many of those multiple wives to cement political alliances. One need not be a biblical scholar to figure out how he got away with his defiance. The Bible also tells what resulted: tragedy as Solomon ran into a wives problem. The Bible does not provide a lot of detail, just some snarky observation. Solomon serves as an object lesson. This is, btw, what I noted in a comment 2 days ago, just below this one.

  • Travis

    My point was that with various courts ruling in favor of SSM on a non-descrimination basis starting in 2003 and passing the Civil Marriage Act 2005 to make it legal everywhere else, the courts still didn't find it necessary to permit polygamy in 2011. Here in Canada the slope doesn't seem to have been very slippery at all.
    In point of fact I do think there was a rational concern about a slippery slope, at least where polygamy was concerned (the assertions that it would lead from that to adults marrying children, or their horse, or their dog were just coo coo bananas). But in practise, that concern appears to have been misplaced.

  • http://klout.com/#/ilovegrover Thane_Eichenauer

    I neither favor nor oppose polygamy. If adults want to polygamize it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. The day that gay marriage or polygamous marriage harms me beyond the current set of legal accommodations that is pretty much universal has yet to arrive.

  • mahtso

    I agree that people marrying out of species is coo coo -- not so the incest -- but you now raise a key point, if I understand your comment: Canada passed a law to allow same sex marriage, which is not the case in the US so I see an apples to oranges situation on a factual basis (leaving aside all the differences in our laws)

  • Nehemiah

    Why not dismiss all elected local, state and federal officials and just let the judges rule? King, judge, what's the difference?