Evidence here.

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul remarked on President Obama‘s decision to publicly support same-sex marriage by saying, “Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer.”

I won’t call you cynical. You’re a morally backward person with a perverted view of sex and marriage. How’s that?

 

UPDATE: Some readers have expressed disappointment that I am not engaging in a reasoned debate. I understand your concerns.  But what’s the point of having a reasoned debate? Has anyone on the other side ever, even once, come to this position as a result of reasoned arguments from relatively uncontroversial principles? I am not trying to have a reasoned debate with the other side. I am instead trying to heap scorn on the other side, much as in the 60s people heaped scorn on racists.

Print Friendly
 
  • http://profiles.google.com/jtlevy Jacob Levy

    hear, hear.

  • http://twitter.com/JasonKuznicki Jason Kuznicki

    This isn’t the type of thing I read BHL for. Sure, as a gay man and a libertarian, I was disappointed in that remark.  But I don’t think namecalling helps one bit. It just steels the other side, now more convinced than ever that ours is just about hate.

  • http://www.facebook.com/derekjamesfrom Derek James-From

    This is a stupid blog post.  The issue of a state’s involvement/control in and over a religious ceremony are much more nuanced that one quote-mined sound bite can possibly reflect.  I expect more from BHL.  

  • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

    This post  is so gay .

  • LogisticEarth

    Yeah, while I agree that Rand Paul isn’t exactly the shining example of a libertarian politician and holds his fair share of detestable positions, this post is just light on content and not something I read BHL for.  This is something I would expect to see on an internet forum, not a blog that for the most part strives to promote productive discussion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1702318862 Jason Brennan

    I’m not trying to have a reasoned debate with an unreasonable person. I’m trying to direct scorn at him, as he deserves.

    • http://www.psychopolitik.com longbongsilver

       Exactly. How do you even reason with someone so childish as to use “gay” as an insult?  Rand Paul should speak like an adult if he expects to be treated like one.

      • http://chuquito.livejournal.com/ jmj

        Rand Paul should speak like an adult if he expects to be treated like one.

        Does this rule also apply to Jason Brennan?

        • http://www.psychopolitik.com longbongsilver

          He’s responding to childishness. If Jason Brennan were to of his own choosing initiate childishness, then yes, it would apply.  that’s not what he did.

          • http://chuquito.livejournal.com/ jmj

            Given Sen. Paul’s not-terribly-admirable behavior, it would have been very easy to be the bigger man.  Brennan, who is brilliant, messed it up badly.  It happens to the best of us.

            (Jason Brennan is smarter in one joint of his pinky than I’ll ever be and, having met him occasionally at conferences, is an all-around good guy.  I just think this is a bad response and I find it a little bit representative of an overzealousness I’ve started to see from the marriage equality side, as if no one can disagree with them and be a non-bigot.)

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rod-Engelsman/822499328 Rod Engelsman

          Jason Brenann isn’t a Senator either. 

          • http://chuquito.livejournal.com/ jmj

            Non-Senators aren’t supposed to be non-childish?  It’s news to me.

    • Thomasy

      Unsupported scorn.  

    • Sam

      Perhaps you should try to understand Rand’s motivations in the same light. I suspect Rand believes that Obama has gone through far more of a political evolution on gay marriage than an actual change of heart and, as such, was attempting to direct scorn at Obama, as he would deserve for not being forthcoming about his beliefs. Understood in that light, Rand was doing exactly as you: not trying to have a reasoned debate with an unreasonable person. The lesson: it’s fairly easy to come off as an asshole when attempting to direct scorn at others, even if those people deserve scorn.

  • martinbrock

    I’m with the consensus here. I’m a mutualist, not a “traditionalist”, but many traditions are anti-state.

    I’m less disappointed with Rand Paul’s snide remark than with Ron Paul stubbornly clinging to the Republican Party and its incredible coalition of neocons and left behinders. He should have dumped the Republican nomination process and taken the Libertarian nomination.

    Libertarians hoping to capture half of the duplicitous two-party state are like the “traditionalists” who tried to capture it before them. They can expect a lot of empty rhetoric and little else. One term of Ron Paul in the White House might have done some good, and even without winning the office, he could have raised issues that two-party state candidates will ignore otherwise.

    Working “within the Republican Party” is being absorbed into the Borg. Same goes for the Democratic Party, of course, and if the Libertarian Party ever controls the Federal government in its current form, it’ll be no different.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rod-Engelsman/822499328 Rod Engelsman

       FWIW that’s sorta the way Greens feel about the Dems. I honestly feel we would be better served by a Parliamentary system but YMMV.

      • martinbrock

        I once felt the same way about a parliamentary system with more parties and non-regional elections, so that a geographically dispersed minority like gay people could elect representatives. I no longer see much use in these “democratic” reforms. The problem with a large central authority is that it’s large and central. Who elects the authorities and how they are elected makes only a little difference.

  • KnowPD

    I enjoy the stirring of the pot.  You are signaling your moral intuitions are at odds with Paul’s.  We do not all believe the same things.  This gets lost in the winner take all mentality of fully supporting or rejecting a candidate and everything thing he stands for or against.

  • Ron Andersen

    Thanks for this so-called post. I was beginning to worry that this site was too intellectual for me.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1702318862 Jason Brennan

      You’re welcome, Ron Andersen.

  • http://politicsandprosperity.wordpress.com/ Fritzhayek99

    Jason,

    I take that you are a proponent of same-sex marriage. But by what means should same-sex marriage obtain recognition? Through the evolution of social norms or through the intervention of the state? Is it all right, from your libertarian perspective, for the state to redefine, by force, the nature of a social institution that arguably is a beneficial one?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1702318862 Jason Brennan

      There’s a interesting argument about whether the state should recognize or institutionalize any marriages, period. But, given that it has recognized some marriages, there’s no argument for it treating some as better than others. The state has to given equal recognition or none at all.

      • martinbrock

        Granting every statutory privilege to anyone who thinks he should have it in the name of “fairness” is a recipe for an exploding state. States are kingmakers, fundamentally, but a state can’t make every man a king, even if politicians say it can.

        If we want a smaller state, deconstructing straight privilege makes more sense than constructing gay privilege to match it. Statutory marriage ain’t all its cracked up to be anyway. Childless straight couples are already abandoning it in droves.

      • http://politicsandprosperity.wordpress.com/ Fritzhayek99

         Therefore, there is “no argument” for the state treating marriage between heterosexual adults as better than, say, “marriage” between adults and 10-year olds, if a vocal minority (consisting of pedophiles and their liberal-libertarian sympathizers) insists on the recognition of such “marriages”?

        • martinbrock

          An adult gay couple clearly is not equivalent to an adult and a 10 year old or an adult and a kangaroo or even an adult and his sister. You make Jason’s case here.

          Luckily, there are a hell of a lot more than two sides to this issue.

          • http://politicsandprosperity.wordpress.com/ Fritzhayek99

             But an adult gay couple clearly is not equivalent to an adult heterosexual couple. You make my case.

          • martinbrock

            I’m not equivalent to you, but we have similar legal rights. If the heterosexual couple has no children, I don’t see any relevant difference.

          • http://politicsandprosperity.wordpress.com/ Fritzhayek99

            Did I say anything about children? You’re just quibbling about where to draw the line. I’ll go with voluntarily evolved social line-drawing over state-imposed line-drawing.

          • martinbrock

            State line drawing is the only thing I’m discussing. States grant tax exemptions, recognize power of attorney and the like, and these statutory rights are the issue.

          • Nathan Scott

            Tax exemptions that single people are not privy too?  Is that not also “a violation of rights?”

          • martinbrock

            I don’t advocate tax exemptions for children. I advocate an obligation of children to support aged parents that supported them. Parents then may invest less otherwise in other productive means during their children’s dependency.

            I also advocate the termination of many rents transferring fruits of children’s labor to people who never supported children, like Social
            Security benefits, interest and principal on Treasury Securities, dividends on shares of Lockheed-Martin, royalties on global monopolies like patents and so on.

          • DavidCheatham

            But an adult gay couple clearly is not equivalent to an adult heterosexual couple. You make my case. 

            In what manner are they not equivalent? Both couples both appear to contain two adult people.

            The only difference I see is that the genders appear to differ. (I assume you mean ‘a couple who wish to get married’.)

            But gender _can’t_ be your argument, because, as we all know, the Equal Protection Clause requires the courts to treat all genders the same, unless doing otherwise ‘furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest’.

            So, in the US, an adult gay couple and an adult heterosexual couple _are_ equivalent in the legal sense, unless you can show some important government interest that making a distinction would further.

            In your hypothetical couple comparison, what would that government interest be?

          • BallsAndStrikes

            You need to justify this assertion. Please explain why they are not equivalent and why the differences matter.  

          • martinbrock

            Since we’re discussing a statutory distinction, you have the burden of proof here. If you can’t justify a statutory distinction on its own merits, the distinction should not exist, and I oppose gay marriage for this reason. I oppose marriage generally, as currently constituted, for the same reason.

          • DavidCheatham

            Erm, no.

            Laws that discriminate on the basis of gender are only allowed to do so if they result in some sort of important government interest. (Thank you, Equal Protection Clause.)

            The marriage laws, which date from before that requirement, do not appear to do have any such important interest, and no one can think of any. (They have, in fact, already failed completely in one court.)

            As the constitution now requires something that no one has ever bothered to come up with, the burden of proof appears to lie on the person asserting the status quo that such a thing exists.

            Until it’s demonstrated there is such an important government interest, we must assume that barring people from a marriage based on gender is not legal _at all_.

            People who say ‘Those guys should stop violating the constitution’ do not have  burden of proof to demonstrate _why_ that should stop. Violating the constitution, or showing why something is not a violation, requires the burden of proof _even if it’s already happening_. 

          • martinbrock

            Laws that discriminate on the basis of gender are only allowed to do so if they result in some sort of important government interest. (Thank you, Equal Protection Clause.)

            I wasn’t discussing the Constitution, and I wouldn’t pin my hopes on it.

            Judges change their minds, but the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that exclusively straight marriage doesn’t violate the Equal Protection clause by refusing to review Baker v. Nelson.

    • BallsAndStrikes

      Legal recognition of some (but not all) marriages is already “intervention of the state.” We are dealing with a state-created institution, here, not a social institution. 

  • Michael J. Green

    His view on sex and marriage is perverted… according to what standard? It’s a wild guess, but I imagine more people in this world would be comfortable with his view than the more free-love position that many of us hold.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Josh-Carter/852885141 Josh Carter

       what I am uncomfortable with is for anyone to have the ability/power/presumed privilege to enforce conditions that make them feel comfortable on any non-aggressing other.

      IOW, have your opinion, but unless you are actually the subject of qualifiable harm,  make sure you understand that your opinion is entirely subjective and largely inconsequential outside of your own head.

  • shemsky

    Anyone that seeks to impose their authority over others, meaning all politicians, is an asshole and a moral pervert.

  • http://www.realadultsex.com figleaf

    And if I didn’t believe in return to mean I’d be a lot more comfortable with nepotism.

    If I didn’t believe nepotism was an unavoidable impulse I’d be a lot more comfortable with unconstrained Libertarianism.

    The mere fact that Rand Paul is a U.S. Senator is all you need to know to be deeply, deeply skeptical that Libertarianism is foundation for a natural, let alone durable form of social organization.

    figleaf

  • martinbrock

    Has anyone on the other side ever, even once, come to this position as a result of reasoned arguments from relatively uncontroversial principles?

    Yes. I came to my position long before gay marriage was enacted anywhere. I was strongly pro-gay rights at the time, meaning anti-sodomy laws. I wrote letters to the editor, attended public rallies and contributed to Lambda Legal Defense. I was barely aware of gay marriage as a political goal, and my position on marriage then had nothing to do with gay marriage.

    My position is that marriage should change because straight relationships have changed. Gay marriage happens to take marriage in the opposite direction,  away from a license to procreate and toward a romantic/recreational sex license.  A license to procreate, or a legal institution codifying the rights and obligations of parents toward their children and one another, makes a little sense to me. A license to love makes no sense whatsoever.

    • j r

      Why “a license to procreate?”  The act of procreation doesn’t seem particularly worthy of support, at least not the act itself.  This is especially true since it doesn’t need marriage to happen.  How about household formation?  That seems like a much worthier outcome to be supporting.  And, if that is true, then what is it that is different about households headed by a homosexual couple that isn’t worthy of support?

      I am trying to see this issue from a non-bigoted point of view, but it’s really difficult. The opponents of gay marriage never present any actual evidence that gay households produce worse outcomes than straight ones.  And they never produce any causal evidence between the increase in openly gay couples and the supposed disintegration of the traditional family.

      • martinbrock

        Two adults forming a household is no one else’s business. The two adults support their own household. Why would I want single householders, cohabiting siblings, older parents living with an adult child or platonic roommates subsidizing other households? What sense does it make?

        Why would I want to show that gay households produce better or worse outcomes than other households? Other people’s households are none of my business. Gay households may have any outcome they want, regardless of any metric I might apply.

        Marriage requires a “license”, but licensing procreation before the fact is not the point, because it’s not necessary anymore. In the past, identifying fathers was difficult. A man could not know that a child was his progeny, and a man who had good reason to accept paternity could easily deny it. Traditional  marriage evolved for this reason, but the reason no longer exists. We now have practically certain paternity tests.

        A cooperative relationship between two people naturally interested in the same child is the point. This relationship exists regardless of any license, but an institution rather than a contract governs it, because the parents are not the only parties, or even the most important parties, involved. The children are most important, and other interested parties also exist.

        Legal procreation does not require marriage anymore, but it did traditionally. This change is recent. Fornication has been illegal in my lifetime, and forbidding out of wedlock birth was the point of this law.

        I don’t want fornication criminalized again, but an institutional relationship between parents of the same children is sensible,  and “marriage” is the name of this institution traditionally. The only name it carries now is “child support”, and this institution is adversarial rather than cooperative.

        Under the marriage reform I favor, procreating voluntarily is marrying, and joint adoption is marrying, and nothing else is marrying, and divorce is rarely an option. Prior consent of the state is not required. Cohabitation of the parents is not required. Marriage does not require spouses to live under one roof now.

        We can discuss what this “marriage” should be, but what it shouldn’t be is a package of statutory benefits for any couple that wants one.

  • DerivativeEqualsZero

    The consequences of homosexual marriage are largely an empirical question: how long-term are they? how monogamous are they are? how are children reared and what are life outcomes? what social effects does their presence have for communities? what are prospects for homosexual health and how does that impact a family? 

    These should be at least considered before, “Of course gay marriage is good! I have a hunch!” is one’s immediate answer. I’m traditionalist enough (and Hayekian enough) to know that my general openness to social experimentation doesn’t mean that I’m right when I have a dog in the fight: it could be entirely true that social condemnation of homosexual practices produces greater social welfare than acceptance (especially if state-forced).

    At most, a philosopher should be expected to be more nuanced, with an openness to wildly different beliefs.

    Is someone “morally backward”? Maybe. Or maybe they’re “morally upright” as compared to your corrosive attitude toward flourishing social customs.

    Personally, I’m comfortable with autonomous communities crafting their own social policies (like economist Dean Barker’s proposal for “‘Free love’ communities [that] screen residents
    for sexually transmitted diseases, prohibit marriage contracts, and give rental
    discounts for physically attractive residents” Nonetheless, I’m also comfortable with the fact that such lifestyles may diminish human flourishing and social welfare. There’s a dialogue that can be made rather than reflexive scorn-heaping.

    • http://profiles.google.com/entelechy77 Kurt Horner

      Multiple problems:
      1) Your argument privileges a restriction on human social arrangements as the default — freedom should be the default.
      2) Studies have been unable to find negative impacts from gay couples, gays raising children, etc.
      3) Most people who oppose gay marriage don’t care about evidence, because their bigotry is founded in religion. Why provide evidence to people who will just ignore it?

      • DerivativeEqualsZero

        1. We grow up with social customs that curb “freedom” in many ways. However, I would leave unmolested communities that completely criminalized monogamous relationships, for instance. The “freedom” part comes from taking part in a community that you voluntarily enter and maintain. For me, “freedom should be the default” does not mean imposing one’s ideological interpretation thereof.

        With our government-upheld “nation,” there is at least a quasi-federalism among states (some legalizing gay marriage, while others  expressly forbid it). I dislike the statist model of “choice” between jurisdictions here (by voting, by migration, etc.), but it’s still a version of freedom that I like more than “everyone gets to do whatever I think is permissible.”2. There is hardly unanimity  in any aspect of social-scientific research. The whole question parallels the problems known to plague single mothers. It is patently true that single motherhood holds a statistically large tie to poor life outcomes for children. If people wanted to loudly protest women choosing single motherhood, would that too be “morally backward” in a world where “freedom should be the default”?

        3. The entire audience is not ostrich-like religious zealots, that’s why. I’m not convinced, for instance. And I doubt Brennan is writing on this blog toward a fingers-in-ears audience.

        • BallsAndStrikes

          1. Social customs do not curb freedom. Disapproval is not disliberty. No one is discussing what the default social view should be. We are talking about the state passing laws which actually curb freedom. You have the burden of justifying those laws. You have done nothing to carry that burden. 

          2. People are free to protest whatever they want. But the government is not as free to impose laws that restrict freedom.  

          3. Your failure to offer any evidence merely reinforces the idea that this is not an evidence-based movement.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1702318862 Jason Brennan

      This debate was already had and my side won.

    • gliberty

      I really don’t expect my reply to help… but just for the “fun” of it….
      “The consequences of heterosexual marriage are largely an empirical question: how long-term are they? how monogamous are they are? how are children reared and what are life outcomes? what social effects does their presence have for communities? what are prospects for 
      heterosexual  health and how does that impact a family?”

      … every family is different. Gay parents and straight parents can be anywhere along a very long spectrum from wonderful to abysmal. One thing that improves the chances of having a decent family life is that the parents are happy and not whipping their backs with (metaphorical) sticks to try to conform to ridiculous standards of “morality” that have nothing to do with treating people well, but instead have to do with ideas about what is sexually accepted by some “authority”.

    • gliberty

      See also: 
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/14/family-life-best-for-1000-years

      Quote:
      “Scarcely challenged, family values campaigners have been able to construct a history that is almost entirely false.
      …Far from this being, as cultural conservatives assert, a period of unique moral depravity, family life and the raising of children is, for most people, now surely better in the west than at any time in the past 1,000 years.”

      Read the article for evidence.

  • Chriswich

    I’m glad you are directing scorn Paul’s way. Too many libertarians defend him based on the “government should be out of marriage anyway” argument. Even non-statists should be ridiculed for bigoted personal beliefs.

    • martinbrock

      I don’t agree that people should be ridiculed for bigoted personal beliefs. As long as your actions don’t threaten my liberty, I don’t care what you believe.

      • BallsAndStrikes

        These bigots are threatening liberty. Others’, if not yours. You should care. 

        • Thomasy

          Not at all.  There’s no liberty interest here.  A claim to a public subsidy isn’t a liberty interest. 

        • martinbrock

          Countless bigots threaten my liberty through state action for countless reasons. I don’t need the state to care on my behalf.

      • Chriswich

        Words like these divide us and breed hate. If someone states homophobic beliefs publicly then I think there should be a negative reaction.

  • http://twitter.com/JasonKuznicki Jason Kuznicki

    I’m pretty sure that in libertopia there is no such thing as a state-recognized marriage.  I’m also pretty sure that I will die before I ever see libertopia.

    In the meantime, government does all kinds of unlibertarian things, many of which center on the family.

    It prohibits free travel at national boundaries (but it lets spouses through easier).  It takes our money for Social Security (but spouses can collect it on death).  It taxes in all kinds of different ways (but spouses can escape inheritance taxes and have the option of filing income taxes jointly).  It makes presumptions about who gets children, and when, and how (but spouses are presumed to be the parents of each others’ children).  It divides up property at divorce (with many advantages for people who went through the paperwork and actually got legally married before they later split their joint property).

    I’d be very happy to explore how to privatize or eliminate all of these things.  But in the meantime, can’t gay people just have regular old marriage?  It would leave us a lot freer of the government in all kinds of ways.  And we wouldn’t have to wait forever to have it.

    • martinbrock

      It divides up property at divorce (with many advantages for people who went through the paperwork and actually got legally married before they later split their joint property).

      It’s an advantage only if you’re the one better off in the division for having gone through the paperwork, isn’t it?

      I’d be very happy to explore how to privatize or eliminate all of these things.

      Me too.

      But in the meantime, can’t gay people just have regular old marriage?

      Why? Just because gay people want statutory benefits? Lots of people want lots of statutory benefits, often because other people have them unfairly.

      In reality, we’re getting nowhere fast with gay marriage. Let’s talk about leveling the playing field by eliminating inequitable, archaic benefits for straight people.

      • http://twitter.com/JasonKuznicki Jason Kuznicki

        ” It’s an advantage only if you’re the one better off in the division for having gone through the paperwork, isn’t it?”

        Not when taxes come into play.  If you want to divide up your wealth at a breakup, the division is potentially subject to a gift tax — but not if you were formally married.

        “Why? Just because gay people want statutory benefits?”

        Well, yes.  Many of those statutory benefits are also applications of negative liberty — like being able to live in the country legally, or transferring your property to someone of your choice.

        We would blanch at denying these rights to Jews or blacks, under some specious cover of libertarian purity.  If we were to forbid Jews to marry — because, hey, there shouldn’t be state-run marriage anyway — that would be atrocious.  The very same argument applies here, and it will continue to do so until things like taxation and immigration get sorted out along libertarian lines.

        • martinbrock

          If we were to forbid Jews to marry — because, hey, there shouldn’t be state-run marriage anyway — that would be atrocious.

          If Episcopalians exclusively receive a subsidy, just because they are Episcopalians, extending the same subsidy to Methodists, without extending it to Baptists or anyone else, seems an odd remedy to me, even if this remedy seems “fairer” to Methodists.

          If I say “Christians” and “Jews” here, instead of “Episcopalians” and “Methodists”, and if Hindus and Muslims are the excluded minorities rather than Baptists and others,  my argument might seem less compelling to some people, but it seems no less compelling to me.

          No childless couple should receive benefits that many straight married couples receive, even if they’re Jewish or black or gay or in some other historically disadvantaged group.

  • Proudhonist

    I didn’t think BHL could get any gayer

  • guynoir

    Ad hominem, the last resort of cowards. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1702318862 Jason Brennan

      I’m not committing an ad hominem fallacy. I am rebuking a person using harsh language.

      Example of an ad hominem:
      1. Hitler advocated vegetarianism.
      2. Therefore, vegetarianism is evil.

      Not an ad hominem:
      1. Hitler was an jerk.

      • martinbrock

        That is an ad hominem, even if Hitler was a jerk. The fallacy is that Hitler being a jerk has any bearing on vegetarianism or anything else Hitler might have advocated or done, other than being a jerk.

        • BallsAndStrikes

          Jason is correct, you are incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

          • martinbrock

            You’re right.

  • http://oneutah.org clifflyon

    You GO Jason,

    There “reasoned debate” and “civil dialogue”  does not and never will change an Authoritarian/racist/bigoted/conservative/tribal mind.

    Social science says ONLY shame and humiliation can work.  To wit: The 60′s civil rights fight for racial equality.

    Segregationists never “changed” their minds, they just stopped using the word ‘nigger’ in public….mostly.

    • BallsAndStrikes

      They mostly died out. Just like homophobes are dying out.

    • http://twitter.com/JasonKuznicki Jason Kuznicki

       I know plenty of people who have changed their views about gays and lesbians, usually in response to a combination of reasoned arguments and actually getting to know some of us.

      These people seem by every test to be sincere in their change of mind. It rather surprises me that you don’t seem to know any.

      Additionally, I have never seen shame or humiliation do any good for anyone here.

  • http://chuquito.livejournal.com/ jmj

    Jason, this is out-of-character.  Not in a good way.

    Maybe you think I’m being charitable to the point of naïveté, but I didn’t see his remarks as particularly hateful.  I saw it as an awkward attempt at word-play.  He didn’t use the word “fag” or “queer” or even “homo.”  He used a word that has been thoroughly claimed by the homosexual community.

    Yes, the guy’s against gay marriage.  Is being against gay marriage all that it takes to be a “moral pervert” and an “asshole”?

    That seems unduly harsh. 

  • Martincothran

    People who disagree with same-sex marriage are all hateful and the people who agree with it are all loving and kind. I’ll keep repeating that to myself just so I don’t have to think about all the evidence to the contrary. Like this post.

    • http://twitter.com/JasonKuznicki Jason Kuznicki

       Jason, this is an example of what I was talking about in my first comment.  You’ve done no favors here to the side you claim to support.

  • Kevin Carson

    How can you have a “reasoned debate” over a statement that wasn’t even intended as a proposition for debate?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1702318862 Jason Brennan

      Perhaps over his position on same-sex marriage?

  • BarefootLibertarian

    I don’t know why you’re using your energy to attack Rand Paul about something he said.

    Sure, Rand Paul isn’t perfect and this quote isn’t exactly PC, but I think thought this website had a bit more substance then this.
    Also, Rand Paul is far from being someone any libertarian should scorn.How many other senators are anti-war, anti-fed, anti-civil liberties violations, anti-subsidy, anti-baliout, the list goes on.Please don’t attack one of the few people in congress trying to enact real reform in the direction of freedom because he said something that wasn’t PC.This blog is childish, and if this divisiveness among libertarians continues, the world will never get any better.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rod-Engelsman/822499328 Rod Engelsman

       “…if this divisiveness among libertarians continues…”

      You must be sorta new to the libertarian scene.

  • Thomasy

    How odd that Brennan would heap scorn on the views that his employer, many of his students, and some of his fellow faculty hold.   Even odder that he never had the decency to ask them to explain their views, and that he never took the time to understand them. 

  • http://noodleincidents.wordpress.com/ Lizzaroni

    I agree with this post.  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

  • good_in_theory

    A bit saccharine, but another episode in marriage inequality:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pR9gyloyOjM But yes, of course, family formation is only important because of procreation and children.  Pay no mind to people’s corpses being apprehended by ‘next of kin’ who have disowned them and from which they are estranged.  Their fault for not creating a contract to mimic every award conventionally recognized kinship affords.  There’s no reason for couples to be able to establish kin relations with each other through a relatively simple, normal, and routine procedure other than if they intend to make babies.  Rather, same sex couples should have to replicate all the features of common law which apply to married individuals through private contracts, or hope that they can have their non-contractual rights enforced through the whimsy of a judge’s evaluation of their personal relationships.

    • martinbrock

      Pay no mind to people’s corpses being apprehended by ‘next of kin’ who have disowned them and from which they are estranged.

      A parent disowning a gay child after raising the child is tragic, but you dismiss this parent’s own tortured experience, however irrational. Where  no will exists, who may rightfully bury and mourn the dead is not obvious to me. A romantic lover need not sacrifice to support a person for decades. A supportive parent must.

      There’s no reason for couples to be able to establish kin relations with each other through a relatively simple, normal, and routine procedure other than if they intend to make babies.

      There are many reasons for people to establish relationships, but we aren’t simply discussing relationships here. We’re discussing a statutory institution with many related benefits enacted historically for many reasons. Some of these benefits seem more applicable to gay couples than others.

      Rather, same sex couples should have to replicate all the features of common law which apply to married individuals through private contracts, …

      Marriage is not a private, common law contract. It is a statutory institution, because it governs children as well as their parents, and children often are unplanned, so a prior contract is not a reasonable expectation.

      … or hope that they can have their non-contractual rights enforced through the whimsy of a judge’s evaluation of their personal relationships.

      Nothing prevents a couple accepting some package of common agreements, crafted by the MCC for example, including wills governing burial of the deceased. I have no problem with these arrangements, and I want states to respect them.

      • good_in_theory

        “A parent disowning a gay child after raising the child is tragic, but you dismiss this parent’s own tortured experience, however irrational. ”

        Common law puts primacy on the intentions of the deceased.  Do you think the deceased would have liked his parents to steal his body and violently obstruct his life-partner from attending his funeral?


        Where  no will exists, who may rightfully bury and mourn the dead is not obvious to me.”
        And yet common law doctrine, in the absence of specifications in a will, generally goes with the spouse, then the children, then other next of kin (ranked by proximity), with some deference to possession of the corpse, in determining who carries out burial rights.

        “Marriage is not a private, common law contract.”

        I never said it was.  I said it created a legal status that has salience in the common law.  (The status of being a spouse).  There are plenty of spousal benefits, as a kind of kinship benefit (affinal kinship. to be specific), that seem clearly to have to do with common law, not statutory law.

        “children often are unplanned, so a prior contract is not a reasonable expectation.”

        Death is often unplanned, so a prior contract is not a reasonable expectation.

        • martinbrock

          Common law puts primacy on the intentions of the deceased.

          The deceased had no will. The video states that marriage would have protected them, but what they actually needed was a will. Without a will, a court would have difficulty siding with a romantic lover over a mother, but I’m not sure that’s terribly unjust.Do you think the deceased would have liked his parents to steal his body and violently obstruct his life-partner from attending his funeral?

          Shane didn’t contest the mother taking the body, so “steal” is not credible here. Excluding him from the funeral was cruel. Disowning their son was cruel.

          Death is often unplanned, so a prior contract is not a reasonable expectation.

          A marriage requires planning. So does a will.

          • good_in_theory


            Without a will, a court would have difficulty siding with a romantic lover over a mother, and I’m not sure that’s terribly unjust.”

            This says more about your moral compass than anything else.  “Romantic lover,” right.

            “A marriage requires planning. So does a will.”

            Young people are in many cases more likely to plan to marry than to plan to die.

            “The marriage that I advocate, based on procreation, is marriage by common law.”

            Common law marriage turns upon a particular variety of cohabitation, with no essential connection to procreation.  Procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient for establishing common law marriage.  (Sexual congress is often necessary, but not sufficient).  Cohabitation is typically necessary but not sufficient.

            Your mutual parenthood conjoinings (or whatever neologism would be appropriate) have nothing to do with common law marriage.  Indeed, your parenthood conjointments would institute polygamy if they were considered to be marriage.

          • martinbrock

            This says more about your moral compass than anything else.  “Romantic lover,” right.

            You don’t like “romantic lover”? Mothers also love their sons.

            Young people are in many cases more likely to plan to marry than to plan to die.

            Again, gay people may already couple formally through institutions like the Metropolitan Community Church, and they may receive counseling on these matters there. I see no need for a political blessing as well.

            Common law marriage turns upon a particular variety of cohabitation, with no essential connection to procreation.

            The standard typically is “presenting as married”. Raising children together and listing “father” on school forms and such would qualify. So would filing a joint income tax return without raising children together.

            Procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient for establishing common law marriage.

            Voluntary procreation would constitute marriage in the reform I advocate, and it wouldn’t require any other declaration, so it would be like marriage by common law in this sense. That was my point. I wasn’t suggesting that the reform I advocate is already the law.

            Indeed, your parenthood conjointments would institute polygamy if they were considered to be marriage.

            Right. I don’t have a problem with that, but couples could still agree to procreate exclusively with one another, with appropriate sanctions for violating the agreement.

            Yes, they do – see Canada, Australia, Iowa.

            Can you link something? I’m not familiar with these laws.

          • good_in_theory

            “You don’t like “romantic lover””

            A romantic lover is not necessarily affinal kin.  A phrase that implies affinal kinship would be better (Spouse would be best.)

            “Again, gay people may already couple formally through institutions like the Metropolitan Community Church, and they may receive counseling on these matters there. I see no need for a political blessing as well.”

            Do such ceremonies establish affinal kinship in the eyes of the law?  No?  Then they need political blessing.

            “The standard in Alabama is “presents as married”. Raising children together and listing “father” on school forms and such would qualify. So would filing a joint income tax return without raising children together.”

            Many states have ‘is known to the community.’ I don’t know what that means, exactly (same with ‘presents as’).  But I have been part of communities which knew people were each other’s spouses and would have considered them married.  But they don’t pass the sexed pairing of husband/wife, so, so much for that.

            “Voluntary procreation would constitute marriage in the reform I advocate, and it wouldn’t require any other declaration, so it would be like marriage by common law in this sense. That was my point. I wasn’t suggesting that the reform I advocate is already the law.”

            So the reform you advocate (which most people would probably relate to parental status, not marital status) would create an institution which we would call marriage which would invalidate vast swathes of existing marriages and conjure up even more marriages out of nothing.  Why exactly are we using the word marriage here?

            “Can you link something? I’m not familiar with these law”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage  Search for same-sex within the page.

            The simple point is this – if we want a functional definition of marriage, then establishing affinal kinship is a pretty solid function.  It’s certainly a better one than procreation.  Procreation establishes parentage.  Should parentage replace marriage for some things?  Sure, I’ll buy that.  But parentage (which establishes a kinship relation of indirect consanguinity) is not the same as marriage (which establishes a kinship relation of legal affinity).

          • martinbrock

            I omitted this point earlier, but I suppose many, even most, gay couples would be shocked to learn that you advocate a statute declaring them married without a formal declaration. If I live with my lover long enough in California, he just owns half of my property, even if I never formally agree?

  • Strombergjr48

    Ah, the old “dying out” motif.   19th-century American literati were always waiting for the Indians  to die out  — regrettable of course, but all for the best.  Marx and Engels discussed the expected dying out of the “poor whites” of the South.  Everyone has a list of people who (regrettably) ought to die out.  I’m not sure this is the best approach to the subject.

    • good_in_theory

      Works in science.  (Cf. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions).  Why wouldn’t it work in society?

  • martinbrock

    @good_in_theory:disqus 

    A phrase that implies affinal kinship would be better (Spouse would be best.)

    “Spouse” is a legal term. Shane and were not spouses, so “spouse” would have been factually incorrect.

    Do such ceremonies establish affinal kinship in the eyes of the law?If the ceremony accompanies legal declarations, like wills and power of attorney, then it does create a lawful relationship, and MCC ministers are versed in this law. It’s their job.
    … would invalidate vast swathes of existing marriages and conjure up even more marriages out of nothing.

    It would invalidate vast swatches of existing marriages and would conjure up marriage out of voluntary procreation or joint adoption.

    Why exactly are we using the word marriage here?”Marriage” has this history, apparently before your time, but if we remove only a few more rights and obligations of marriage, primarily subsidies that I oppose in general, then you can have the word. It’s only a word.
    The simple point is this – if we want a functional definition of marriage, then establishing affinal kinship is a pretty solid function.This definition does not imply gay marriage. If you want affinal kinship with your gay partner, you could also use a different word, but I don’t much care which word you use. Specific legal rights and obligations are the issue.
    It’s certainly a better one than procreation.  Procreation establishes parentage.Consanguinity is related to affinal kinship historically. Potentially procreative couples married, and only married couples could lawfully procreate. Fornication was a crime. Procreation was an expected consequence of marriage. Exceptional marriages were “barren” and could lead to divorce.A “mother in law” had this title, because she would be the grandmother of a child, and her “son in law” would be the father of the same child.Should parentage replace marriage for some things?  Sure, I’ll buy that.O.K. I’ll swap you “marriage” for a decent legal institution binding parents of the same children.
    But parentage (which establishes a kinship relation of indirect consanguinity) is not the same as marriage (which establishes a kinship relation of legal affinity).

    Historical marriage establishes a particular legal affinity, not any legal affinity you want now, and this affinity is certainly related to parentage.

  • good_in_theory

    “Spouse” is a legal term. Shane and were not spouses, so “spouse” would have been factually incorrect.”
    I would consider a black slave a ‘person’ regardless of what the law says, if I were in the antebellum south, though person is a legal term.  And I will consider gay ‘life partners’ or ‘significant others’ or whatever other inadequate euphemism we’re using to be spouses with equal dismisiveness towards what the law says, whenever such aspirational use is appropriate.

    “If the ceremony accompanies legal declarations, like wills and power of attorney, then it does create a lawful relationship, and MCC ministers are versed in this law. It’s their job.”

    But do their consanguine relatives become in-laws?  Do they become spouses?  Does the whole network of affinal kinship easily established by marriage come into effect in the eyes of public and private authorities?

    “It would invalidate vast swatches of existing marriages and would conjure up marriage out of voluntary procreation or joint adoption.”

    Hm, I second guessed myself, but correct usage is swathe, not swatch.  In any case,  sex is voluntary.  Conception is involuntary.  Sex with intent to conceive is voluntary.  The volitional aspect of procreation depends upon whether or not one feels and is free to do anything about conception.  I’m skeptical of any alleged ‘volition’ which is only retroactive.  (Better words: resignation, confirmation, affirmation).  Conception without intent to conceive is involuntary, regardless of whether or not one later ratifies the decision.

    “Marriage” has this history, apparently before your time, but if we remove only a few more rights and obligations of marriage, primarily subsidies that I oppose in general, then you can have the word. It’s only a word.”

    The world in which marriage exists also has a history.  That history includes the invention of contraception and women’s liberation.  Both rather radically altered marriage in the 20th century.  The shift cleanly split affinal kinship from parenthood, though it was already so split in Church doctrine. 

    “Historical marriage establishes a particular legal affinity, not any legal affinity you want now, and this affinity is certainly related to parentage.”

    Using affinity in the technical sense tied to kinship, there is no legal affinity apart from marriage.  That’s what marriage does immediately – it establishes legal affinity.  Regardless of whether or not such affinity was originally mediated through the presumption of the  creation of a consanguine line, such mediation is now incidental.  One has in-laws regardless of whether or not one has kids.  My sister did not need to have a child in order for her husband to be my brother-in-law.  Marriage necessarily creates in-laws – it only incidentally creates children.  In Christian history, marriage (including non-consumated marriage), not procreation, created affinal ties that at times had the function of prohibiting marriage/sexual congress between non-consanguine family members.  Non-consummated marriage still creates such ties.  See Canon Law 109.

    Can. 109 §1. Affinity arises from a valid marriage, even if not consummated, and exists between a man and the blood relatives of the woman and between the woman and the blood relatives of the man.

    These affinal ties are also a function of state marriage.

    • DavidCheatham

      Using affinity in the technical sense tied to kinship, there is no legal affinity apart from marriage. 
      Technically, adoption creates legal affinity also. Although marriage is the only way to place someone in the position of ‘spouse’, which is the ‘closest’ family position.

      However, yes, you are otherwise correct, and thank you for _finally_ getting martinbrock to drop the surreal idea that marriage is nothing more than a tax deduction he doesn’t like, and that it would be better if we used ‘marriage’ to mean ‘parents who are together’.

      • good_in_theory

        Thanks for the correction.  A little too fast and loose on my part there.  Though adoption is interesting as it doesn’t create the network of affinal ties marriage does.  As such marriage is the only institution which has the ability to generate legal affinity transitively.

      • martinbrock

        I never suggest that marriage is nothing more than a tax deduction that I don’t like, and I don’t say that “marriage” should mean “parents who are together” either. I say that “marriage” should mean “people who are parents of the same children”.

  • Jonathan Watson

    “Has anyone on the other side ever, even once, come to this position as a result of reasoned arguments from relatively uncontroversial principles?” Yes, they have. But, if one begins by defining anything one’s opponent says as “controversial” and “unreasonable”, then nothing the “other side” says could possibly be reasonable and uncontroversial.

  • Joseph Stromberg

    Wishing (however piously) for  your opponents to die off strikes me as rather ungenerous. Bad form.  It was a point of manners.

    Science (drum rolls) don’t enter into it.

    • good_in_theory

      Bigotry and discrimination are worse manners.

  • martinbrock

    @good_in_theory:disqus 

    I would consider a black slave a ‘person’ regardless of what the law says, …

    You can’t make up your mind here. On the one hand, you insist that “spouse” means lawful affinity and say you need statutory approval to claim the title, and on the other hand, you want to call someone without this lawful affinity “spouse”.

    And I will consider gay ‘life partners’ or ‘significant others’ or whatever other inadequate euphemism we’re using to be spouses with equal dismisiveness towards what the law says, …

    You want me to be dismissive. You struggle incredibly to believe me dismissive.

    But do their consanguine relatives become in-laws?  Do they become spouses?

    They become legal partners with specific legal rights that they specify themselves, but they are not legally “spouses”, which is what I say above before you go off on slavery.

    Does the whole network of affinal kinship easily established by marriage come into effect in the eyes of public and private authorities?

    No. You think it should, because you think it unfair that others couples without a relevant difference may join this group. I rather think that many people in this group don’t belong there, because there is no relevant difference.

    In any case, sex is voluntary. Conception is involuntary.

    Sex is not always vol, but I only refer to voluntary procreation.

    Conception is involuntary.

    Choosing a risk is choosing any of the possible outcomes without specifying a particular outcome in advance. Most choices fit this description in reality.

    The volitional aspect of procreation depends upon whether or not one feels and is free to do anything about conception.

    Women may choose not to abort. Men must choose a bit earlier, but at some point, all of these choices have consequences, and they all jointly constitute the choice to procreate.

    I’m skeptical of any alleged ‘volition’ which is only retroactive.

    The choice to procreate is not retroactive, even if you thought the condom wouldn’t break.

    Conception without intent to conceive is involuntary, regardless of whether or not one later ratifies the decision event.

    It isn’t, but even I accept your usage of “involuntary” here, it’s hardly relevant to my point. What’s your point? You would free a man of a lawful bond when I wouldn’t in a few cases?

    The world in which marriage exists also has a history. That history includes the invention of contraception and women’s liberation.

    Yes, it does, and I celebrate both.

    Both rather radically altered marriage in the 20th century.

    Yes, they did, and I want to alter it again, consistent with the invention of contraception and women’s liberation. You also want to alter it. Our alterations reflect different priorities.

    The shift cleanly split affinal kinship from parenthood, though it was already so split in Church doctrine.

    The shift is not half as clean as you pretend here. If it were, we wouldn’t be discussing this constitutional amendment in N.C.

    Using affinity in the technical sense tied to kinship, there is no legal affinity apart from marriage.

    You’re discussing current law. We’re discussing reforming current law. No law of nature prevents a state enacting a legal affinity between gay partners without calling it “marriage”.

    My sister did not need to have a child in order for her husband to be my brother-in-law.

    Historically, her husband is your brother-in-law, because you would be the uncle of a child born within his marriage to your sister.

    Marriage necessarily creates in-laws – it only incidentally creates children.

    That’s why I want to change it.

    In Christian history, marriage (including non-consumated marriage), not procreation, created affinal ties that at times had the function of prohibiting marriage/sexual congress between non-consanguine family members.  Non-consummated marriage still creates such ties.  See Canon Law 109.

    If you want to reform marriage this way, you may advocate this reform. Again, gay marriage does not remedy inequities as it does not similarl privilege between all sorts of people who are not sexual partners. I refer to cohabiting nuns specfically. It only entitles a few more people to a legal institution still excluding many others.But you don’t seem to advocate this reform. Why? Why not all the rights of marriage for cohabiting siblings, children with aged parents, monks, nuns or platonic roommates? Why not any two or more adults regardless of any romantic or sexual relationship? Why is the romantic/sexual relationship so important here?

    • good_in_theory

      You can’t make up your mind here. On the one hand, you insist that “spouse” means lawful affinity and say you need statutory approval to claim the title, and on the other hand, you want me to call someone without this lawful affinity a “spouse”. 

      My mind is quite made up.  Spouse is a social convention which has legal status.  I want people who fulfill the social convention to be called spouses, and I want all people who are called spouses to be equally recognized by the law as spouses.  Some reason backwards from who is legally considered a spouse to what counts socially as a spouse.  I reason from what counts socially as a spouse to what counts legally as a spouse.  Spouses are individuals who wish to incorporate into each other’s family – to merge clans, as it were.

      They become legal partners with specific legal rights that they specify themselves, but they are not legally “spouses”,

      But they aren’t simply legal partners, they’re spouses.  That’s what people become when they decide to join each other’s families and spend the rest of their lives together.

      I rather think that many people in this group don’t belong there, because there is no relevant difference.

      So we should eliminate affinal kinship entirely?  Affinal kinship is a relevant difference.  Umarried parents are relevantly different from married parents.  Unmarried couples are relevantly different from married couples.

      Choosing a risk is choosing any of the possible outcomes without specifying a particular outcome in advance. Most choices fit this description in reality.

      No.  This isn’t worth an argument.  That is not what a choice is.  On this account everything which directly (but not necessarily intentionally) proceeds from a voluntary action is chosen.  That’s inane.  Choices are intentional.  There are unintended consequences but not unintended choices.

      Women may choose not to abort. Men must choose a bit earlier, but at some point, all of these choices have consequences, and they all jointly constitute the choice to procreate.

       

      Choosing not to abort is not “choosing to procreate”.  It’s choosing “not to not procreate,” much as I choose “not to not stop my beating heart” though I do not choose “for my heart to beat.”  Procreation happens on its own.  One permits oneself to procreate, one doesn’t chose to do it.

      The shift is not half as clean as you pretend here. If it were, we wouldn’t be discussing this constitutional amendment in N.C.

       

      Ok, I mispoke.  The shift is messy, the split is clean:  Marriage – to receive a spouse: Parentage: to have paternity or maternity of.  The conceptual split has been a constant throughout history.  Female dependency muddied (but never eliminated) their independence empirically.  The conceptual distinction is solid. Marriage, betrothal, wedding – all refer to acts of contract/agreement. Parentage – a natural fact.

      That’s why I want to change it.

       

      I’d rather inmates receive life-sentences than death-sentences, but I don’t go around trying to change the meaning of death-sentence to ‘being in prison until one dies of natural causes.’  I try to replace one with the other. You want to eliminate marriage and create formal obligations which proceed from (blood) parentage.  You can’t change what marriage means.  Well, you can, if you’re humpty dumpty.   But being humpty dumpty isn’t very productive.

      But you don’t seem to advocate this reform. Why? Why not all the rights of marriage for cohabiting siblings, children with aged parents, monks, nuns or platonic roommates? Why not any two or more adults regardless of any romantic or sexual relationship? Why is the sexual relationship so important in marriage?

       

      The sexual relationship isn’t important.  I was citing canon law as an instance of recognition of the import of creating affinal kinship as opposed to consanguine kinship – of affinal kinship being a relevant difference.  What is important is the reciprocal desire to be incorporated into the kinship network of another family.  If platonic roommates or monks or nuns (I would guess that monks and nuns renounce temporal families, however) want to do that, and if they want to do it through a spousal, rather than a fraternal, relation, fine.  There is no need to establish such ties among siblings or children and parents.

      Of course there may be situations where consanguine kin want to strengthen their kinship relation through an affinal tie – that’s fine at face, though the incest taboo of course complicates things.  But here’s an unproblematic example: a 21 year old adopts his 8 year old brother (or cousin, or whoever) after the death of their parents.  Affinal ties on top of consanguine ties.  Perfectly fine.  Similarly, take distant cousins marrying.

      I think you can get everything you need for affinal kinship out of disownment/emancipation, adoption, and marriage.  In addition to this you need direct relationships (spouse, parent, child), indirect relationships (sibling and cousin), consanguine relationships, and affinal relationships.  Spousal relationships are unique in that they can only be affinal.  All others can be either affinal or consanguine.

      • martinbrock

        If platonic roommates or monks or nuns (I would guess that monks and nuns renounce temporal families, however) want to do that, and if they want to do it through a spousal, rather than a fraternal, relation, fine.

        What “fraternal” relationship constitutes affinal kinship, other than being someone’s brother-in-law through marriage? If the state may recognize another “fraternal” relationship, why can’t gay lovers be “brothers” in the eyes of the state rather than “spouses”? Who died and made you Moses?

        That’s what I thought. We’re actually on the road to a vast expansion of “marriage” and many associated statutory benefits for licensed relationships, for no obvious reason other than people’s desire for benefits and politicians’ desire to hand them out.

        • good_in_theory

          1.  Adoption by another’s parents constitutes affinal fraternal kinship.

          2. Gay lover’s can’t be brothers rather than spouses because being someone’s brother sets very different expectations than being someone’s spouse, with respect to property law, family law, &etc.

          3. I don’t care about the benefits, I care about benefits being given out non-discriminatorily.  What matters is equal recognition in the eyes of the law for the same essential relationships.  If benefits are attached to those, then equity demands their extension.  If their extension is a problem, eliminate the benefits, not equal recognition before the law.  All benefits extended to couples which incorporate each other into each other’s families as spouses, as a means of modifying their kinship relations, should be extended to all couples who do this.

  • http://man-with-the-silver-gun.myopenid.com/ man-with-the-silver-gun

    It’s always instructive to see who enraged an intellectual. According to the evidence so far, Mr. Brennan is fine with being a rude dick for a comment in the culture war, but has never so far posted such an expletive laden post for people pushing for the endless restriction of economic liberty. He has planted his flag, and its firmly in the lefty culture war camp, not liberty for all camp. 

  • Pingback: When Sanction of the Victim Becomes Suicide | WinLiberty Blog

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-P-Slevin/690162319 John P Slevin

    Good post.  I linked to it on an article I wrote about Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney, a drug warrior.  Rand suggests support for the Mutt is the way we can get his Senate to discuss Industrial Hemp and also arrogantly reserves for himself accolades for bringing the subject of Industrial Hemp near the point where some Senate Republicans actually might say they’ll consider the issue.

    The guy simply is out to lunch.  He needs to go back to where he came from, stop pretending he’s responsible for any significant achievement except blabbing on the dimes taken from those assuming he was principled, like his father and all in all just shut the hell up till he learns something.

  • Pingback: Alot of Wingnuts in Ron Paul’s Iowa | WinLiberty Blog

  • jgodiska

    Would the gay population out thee be upset, if the legal marriage certificate had “SAME SEX MARRIAGE” at the top of it? After all, that is what it would be. Or do you think you need to have a “MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE” , so you could feel normal?

    To clarify that, I would say that yes, you guys are not normal. Not speaking morally, but speaking genetically. A “normal” union, is one for propogation of the species. Which could never be in a same sex marriage. On a positive note, a “normal” heterosexual stance by an individual, usually lacks any kind of talent in the arts. I do not believe that acting, per se, introduces an individual to a homosexual lifestyle. I just think, from reviewing things I have seen in my life, that gay people are more talented in general.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.