Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

In the form of a domestic partnership status, yes.



No, it's really not. It's just that it's heard less frequently because the other arguments are louder. When you ask most people *why* they think the state should have a different status for heterosexual marriage than for gay marriage, most of them wont know right off the bat. They know that there should be and that the state should treat a straight marriage differently, but they've never put it down in words why. Give them some time, and talk through the issue, and most of them will eventually arrive at the same conclusion I have: That the state status rewards heterosexuals who marry because there's a special value to heterosexuals getting married. Push them to examine this further and they'll eventually also arrive at the same "cause couples consisting of a man and woman can produce children and we want them to be married before they do that" position.


The reason you don't hear the argument is because most people don't actually debate it beyond just expressing what they think should be the law. This allows other people to just assume the reason, and it's much more entertaining to point to religious rules, bigotry, and whatnot.



Of course. I'm not a libertarian though. I've stated this many times. Also, the point is that if we're going to create a status which rewards people who marry, we ought to focus that status only on those for whom we created it and from whom we gain the most advantage if they marry.

A conservative (especially a libertarian) will certainly argue about the usefulness of farm subsidies, for example. But every single one of them will argue that if we're going to have farm subsidies, we ought to only subsidize farming which benefits the rest of us financially. They would oppose extending the subsidy to farmers who "need the money" because that's not why the subsidy exist.

Same thing here. The fact that gay couples benefit from being married isn't a good enough reason to subsidize their marriages. Yet that was one of the arguments made in the case apparently. Every conservative will argue that that's the wrong criteria to use.

Who are you talking to? The judge was appointed by HW Bush, but is *not* labeled as either conservative or liberal in the article.

One of the plaintiffs attorney's was labeled as a conservative. I'm not sure where in the article the judge is so labeled.

Funnily enough walker is gay.

Walker is the judge btw.

oh and to your last bit there.

Edited, Aug 4th 2010 5:46pm by Xsarus

Huh, look at that. I misread it, as I stated I may have.

Guess maybe you shouldn't have assumed I assumed he was conservative based on who appointed him.

those aren't libertarians. gbaji knows what libertarians would want more than libertarians.

I can't WAIT for this to get to the supreme court just so they can echo the judge's sentiment and we can all laugh at you for being such a dunce.




I have a hard time believing the supreme court will overturn that.

Likewise.

Unless you mean to imply that women judges are incapable of ruling on cases involving women or black judges are incapable of ruling on cases involving blacks. It's a damn shame judges can't all be white heterosexual Christian males so that way we can trust them, huh?

Funny how it doesn't mean anything when a Republican railing against homosexuality, later turns out to be gay themselves, but when a gay judge rules in favour of homosexuals, it's got to be THE deciding factor.

I'm not saying it wasn't, as it very well could be, but I still find it funny how you jump to conclusions when it "helps" your cause, but would otherwise denounce it when it "hinders" your side.

yeah, I already posted that bit of trivia. I believe joph's response covers it though.

Well, at the risk of opening up the "fundamental right to marry" debate again, the Supreme Court has never ruled that right applies to same sex couples. In the same way it's never ruled that it applies to marrying multiple partners, or a sibling, or a pet. While it's possible the court may fail to address the case within the broader context of marriage, I somehow doubt it.

It's not as simple as "it's unfair to discriminate against gay people".

As opposed to allegory speaking for them? No one's debating what they've said. We're discussing their decisions and *why* they might make them. If a libertarian is faced with a choice that consists purely and only of having a status which provides benefits to a list of people, and changing the status so that it provides benefits to a larger group of people, and there are no other considerations, I don't think it's hard to noodle out which one they'll support.


The reason they support extending marriage benefits to gay couples is specifically because they hope to use that as a lever to eliminate marriage benefits entirely. Is this even contested? Seriously?

And let me add something. If benefits are extended to gay couples nationwide, I'll be right there with the libertarians fighting to end federal and state benefits for marriage entirely. Because at that point, the floodgates are opened, and the whole point of the benefits ceases to exist. The problem for me is that I can see why those benefits are needed. If we don't also eliminate all other government social spending programs at the same time, we're going to have a net negative effect on society for doing so. Incentives for marriage are the last thing left which to some degree fight the overwhelming amount of government spending on programs which encourage poor single women to produce the next generation of criminals.

Sadly, I doubt we'll be able to do that, so we'll be stuck with the bad and none of the good.

Edited, Aug 4th 2010 5:45pm by gbaji

Like the Constitution, mirite?


Edited, Aug 4th 2010 7:43pm by Sweetums

Ok. Then why do you suppose a libertarian party leader would praise a law expanding the number of people who qualify for a set of government benefits. Seriously. Think about this. Then note that while the praise was faint at best, it was immediately followed with the belief that marriage benefits should be eliminated entirely. Allegory's links are telling "Libertarians praise Maine/DC marriage laws, but urge better policy".

What did you think that meant? Why would they praise a law which does nothing except ensure that gay couples can access the same government benefits as straight couples and then immediately state that it would be even better if we just eliminated those benefits for everyone?

Let me give you a hint: It's not because they think gay couples should have those benefits. They don't think *anyone* should have them. You've got to be pretty freaking dense not to get this.